ToughCases
Mediators
idea: Put pictures here
- TedErnst, MarkDilley, BryanDaugherty, DrewMyers, DannyG add yourself!
What
We need to be able to figure out conflict, and the easiest way to start may be by looking for patterns.
Why
Because the tough cases help define who we are and the value boundaries. Having more tough cases which are resolved well will make it easier to resolve all cases in the future.
Ideas on values which may help guide our actions in tough cases
- Promote free speech - People should be allowed to express their views on our site so long as its done constructively. Comments which are either personal attacks or non-constructive should be removed regardless of who contributed them.
- Repect Intellectual Property - While duplication of some content on our site will fall under Fair Use, we should be respectful of the intellectual property of others and be willing to remove content where the owner does not wish it to be on our site.
- Libelous remarks - Libel and slander do not belong on AboutUs.
- Thoughts On Negative Reviews talk
I also would be willing to help out with mediation. There are a few things which will ultimately require some sort of mediation, such as Category:PossibleAdultContent, and we're going to need mediation to prevent edit wars and outright hostility. DrewMyers | talk
I would not mind being part of this process. I think a mediation team could help resolve issues quicker hopefully before they get out of hand. Through mediation we can try and bring the parties together to find a viable solution. If one is unattainable then it can then be brought to the staff by the mediation team. I think this method would cut down on staff time trying to resolve conflicts and only have to deal with the ones that can't be resolved. --DannyG | talk 09:10, 9 September 2007 (PDT)
- Drew, DannyG and Bryan -- fantastic and thanks! I'm wondering what you guys think about the guidelines above as a starting point (please feel free to edit them as your response of course) - Ray | talk
- Libelous remarks - Libel and slander do not belong on AboutUs. This is a hard one since we are not the law it would be hard to say it is Libel or slander. I do think that the comment can still be put in a constructive way.
- Thoughts On Negative Reviews talk 09:54, 9 September 2007 (PDT)
- I like the guidelines as well, but we might need to hear a legal opinion on libel/slander and the protections AboutUs has against such accusations. It seems like most complaints about negative comments involve such accusations. Even constructive comments have been labeled as such. To mediate, we'll need to know how to define constructive and what crosses over the line. Sometimes that's fairly simple, but sometimes not. DrewMyers | talk 16:26, 14 September 2007 (PDT)
- TakKendrick -- One of the tough cases we see are people who provide some constructive edits, (User:WikiMan232 for example) but also who make baiting and unconstructive edits as well. I suggesting that we create some sort of log or place to discuss these people so that when they make an edit everyone in the community (particularly RC patrollers) can reference the history of this person and have this in mind when dealing with the users. Questions that immediately come to mind:
- Is this log private or public? If private, how can we make it so that all patrollers (especially non-staff) can read?
- How do we interface this log with the actual people, ie. how do staff, patrollers and the community know that there's a history here and where to go to read up on it?
- Category:Reviews Need Patrolling is probably a home for tough cases.
