User:FT2/Community

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This historic page dates back to my RFA, and lists some of the dispute resolution contributions I have made to the community, in terms of dispute resolution, analysis of issues in discussion, communication, and the like (as opposed to page drafting)... and the community's feedback on these.

For articles I have written, rewritten, significantly reorganized or cleaned up, or otherwise made a significant contribution to, see here.

For Wikipedia project work, including project pages, policies, disputes, mediation and templates and categories, see here.


A note

As is evident, my AFD and dispute resolution analyses are often fairly detailed. Reasons:

  1. Communication: - Complex disputes arise through poor communication. A good description guides those unfamiliar with the issue, or perhaps with policy, through the matter.
  2. Accessible description: - Complex disputes escalate when a good clear summary isn't easily accessible. A good description that describes events (with evidence) from start to end without taking sides, makes most disputes much easier to check and review.
  3. Good faith/drama reduction: - Complex disputes often involve contentious issues and bad faith. A full explanation how and why certain views are taken, reduces these, shows good faith, and usually helps reduce drama.
  4. Transparency: - A clear explanation adds transparency, allows others to review a decision if needed.
  5. Neutrality: - An unexplained or obscure decision may be suspected by one side in a dispute to be non-neutral; with concerns the matter has been was closed unfairly. This unspoken "chip on the shoulder" then often influences their future interactions and conduct.
  6. Supporting consensus decision-making: - In the case of a ruling by consensus, such as AFD, one good point on either side can sway the balance. Consensus involves considering comments rather than just counting views. Commenting on different points made, evidences this.

Evidence and feedback tends to support this.

Most cases closed this way, will much more readily reach consensus, and drama is killed. For many reasons (transparency, review, good faith, drama reduction, neutrality) it's worth the extra work in terms of dispute resolution. In other words, I find it works.


FT2.

[edit] Pre-adminship dispute resolution

Pre-adminship, the range of accessible approachs was more limited. In addition, historically in 2004-2006, cases were taken to arbcom, which would nowadays probably be handled in other ways, such as WP:ANI.

Accordingly this section is a window on the historic dispute resolution work prior to adminship.

Partial list of disputes and resolutions, probably a large number of others I can't remember:
  1. Cindy the Dolphin - solved categorization dispute for editors (new)
  2. Homosexual recruitment (before after) - noticed an AFD dispute whether encyclopedic. Researched and mostly rewrote article, after which it was accepted it was.
  3. Talk:Sexual intercourse - the "circumcision debate"
  4. Trusted Computing (before after) - Precariously stable after previous editor dispute, rewrote introduction -- delicate!!
  5. Cultural and historical background of Jesus - mediator following editors' RFC, later co-author of new article with user:Slrubenstein
  6. Zoophilia - controversial, regularly attacked by POV warriors. Cool and level head needed!
  7. Arbcom: Ciz AKA DrBat - Documented and presented case of POV warrior on zoophilia. Initial case Jan 2005, finally removed from article after 2nd arbcom Jan 2006. Previous steps included mediation, discussion, etc.
  8. Arbcom: HeadleyDown and sock/meatpuppets - Documented and presented case of POV warrior on neuro-linguistic programming. Finally removed from Wikipedia June 2006. List of bans, blocks and socks, and their dialogs, needs to be seen to be believed. Several mentors got wikistress before this was concluded.
  9. House Made of Dawn - mediation input
  10. Kwanzaa - judaic symbols controversy
  11. Big Love - dispute following editors RFC request
  12. Foreskin - dispute over cited quotes that compare foreskins to condoms. NPOV and fair characterization issues. Redrafted paragraph to resolve.
  13. Farmers Insurance Group - dispute following request on WP:AN/I; COI by both "grudge" sites and Farmers' own agents both editing, large chunk copyvio of promotional text, NPOV/RS problems.