User:Lexein/NewWQA
 | This is not a Wikipedia article: It is an individual user's work-in-progress page, and may be incomplete and/or unreliable. For guidance on developing this draft, see Wikipedia:So you made a userspace draft. Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
WQA should exist, and it should be reformed so that it's not broken. The fewer venues which exist for dealing with dispute resolution, the greater the editor burnout at the few venues left.
- 3O really is focussed on content disputes, primarily due to the strength of the nomination process, which forces narrow language choices which, if exceeded, result in the nomination being deleted from the queue without a hearing. The instructions make it very clear that behavioral issues aren't welcome.
- WQA should be 3O's complement, and perhaps become more narrowly focussed, and pipelined the same way, with a similar nomination process, so that cool heads are required. Looking at WQA discussions, I get hives: too verbose, too much "I said, they said", without just damn diffs and links. Radical changes are required:
- Comments by involved editors should be truncated to (say) 20 words or less by uninvolved assisting editors, no exceptions, no mercy,
- No more than 3 diffs or anchor links from each involved user, to illustrate the problem, Involved editors make no further comments after initial comments are submitted by all involved editors. There's no need for rebuttals: the original linked uncivil behavior is all the evidence needed.
- Pinpoint linking to the issues should be done with neutral anchor links within the problem discussion between the original comments. Example:
{{anchor|user1anchor1}}linked to like this link (click it) should be encouraged between comments (never within), - The assisting editors will look at the evidence, and propose a solution, while discussing specific policies#sections and guideline#sections which apply. Other assisting editors can discuss, suggesting alternates or refinements. At that point, the involved editors can (<40 words) respond.
I know full well that this may be too radical, especially the first one, since it goes against WP:TPOC - but this isn't really a talk page process, it's a dispute resolution process, involving applying behavioral advice by experienced civil editors to all disputing editors.