User:TransporterMan/Sandbox/9

Neutral participant program proposal

Proposal

The Neutral Participant Program (NPPR) would be a content dispute resolution process for use only in those situations in which DR through DRN or MedCom has been declined by those processes because one or more principal participants in the dispute has failed or refused to participate in DR even though adequate talk page discussion has occurred. The NPPR page would work much like the Third Opinion page and, indeed, the process would be similar to 3O, with the major differences being:

• As noted above, the dispute must have first been filed at DRN or MEDCOM, but been declined or refused due to lack of participation. Adequate talk page discussion must have already occurred.
• There can be more than two participants in the dispute.
• Rather than merely rendering an opinion, the neutral participant would become involved in the ongoing discussion.
• NPPR volunteers must be experienced editors, with at least 5,000 general edits and at least 50 edits as a dispute resolution volunteer. (Rather than the 50 volunteer edits, either 10 completed cases — 3O opinions or DRN listings — in which actual DR work was done or current or alumni MEDCOM membership will also suffice.)

Other than its differences from 3O, the features of the process would be:

• Any person, including a non-participant may list the dispute at the NPPR page; indeed, the closer or other volunteer at DRN or MEDCOM may enter a discussion under the auspices of NPPR directly upon the case being closed at DRN or MEDCOM without ever being listed at the NPPR page.
• The neutral participant (NP) will attempt to do what a DR volunteer would do at DRN or in a mediation at MEDCOM, but will do it on the article talk page so that a participant cannot avoid DR merely by choosing not to participate.
• The NP must be strictly neutral as to both the participants and the subject matter, and subject to initial objection by the other participants for lack of neutrality. If a participant objects to the NP's neutrality, the NP will withdraw but will relist the dispute at the NPPR page for a new NP to take over the case; the case will not be abandoned unless no other NP chooses to participate. While the NP begins as a neutral participant, they will become a participant in the discussion and will inevitably become less neutral as time goes on and their opinions and positions will "count" towards consensus. What is important is that they cannot be accused of entering or engaging in the discussion with a bias or POV.
• The NP must not actually edit the article, except to implement agreed edits or edits which have a consensus which is so clear as to be beyond reasonable dispute.
• The NP will only remain involved so long as the immediate matter in dispute remains unresolved. The NP will not continue to be involved in the article or in the discussion once the immediate matter in dispute is resolved or clearly becomes intractable. Participating as an NP in a dispute works as an indefinite voluntary topic ban for the NP as to that article once their involvement in the dispute is complete, so the NP needs to be sure that they have no interest in editing or discussing that article ever again before accepting a case.
• While it is always in the NP's sole discretion, not anyone else's, the NP should always endeavor to be self-aware and should be quick to withdraw if the NP has lost their objectivity, is not making any progress, or is doing more harm than good. A withdrawing NP should decide whether further assistance under NPPR would be beneficial with a new NP and request a replacement at the NPPR page if such is the case.
• The NP will serve as a conduct monitor to request proper conduct and admonish misconduct. The NP may make reports to administrators, ANI, or other conduct DR forums, but should only do so after warnings and only if administrative action is virtually certain. The NP must absolutely and strictly avoid committing conduct violations. (An administrator who acts as a NP must consider themselves involved in the discussion and avoid taking administrative actions.)
• The NP will, in every posting to the talk page, begin the NP's post with: <small><span style="color:green">(Neutral party from the [[WP:NPPR|Neutral Party Program]]):</span></small> (which renders to (Neutral party from the Neutral Party Program):). We can develop a template for that so as to reduce the codiness.
• A standardized template will be developed to announce the entry of an NP into a discussion, perhaps something like (without the box):

(Neutral party from the Neutral Party Program): Hi, I'm ~~~, I've been asked — or perhaps merely volunteered — to act as a neutral participant in this dispute under the auspices of the Neutral Participant Program. You can read the entire guidelines governing my participation at that page, but just let me quickly say: I believe — and assert — that I am wholly neutral with no biases toward or against any party or position in this dispute or in regard to the subject matter of this article. Since I'll become a participant, it's natural that I may support one side or another as time goes on, but I'm starting from a neutral position. If anyone objects to my neutrality, please say so now and I'll ask for a new neutral participant to replace me. I'll be acting as a "hall monitor" to encourage people to avoid incivility or other misconduct. I'm not an administrator (or if I am one, I'm going to lay down my admin tools altogether in connection with this discussion). I'll try to keep everyone in line by just nagging at you, but I reserve the right to ask an administrator or administrative forum such as ANI or ARBCOM to act if you don't listen. Unless everyone is in agreement or we have a clear consensus I won't edit the actual article. I'm only here for the current dispute. I won't be staying on as a discussion monitor or staying on or coming back as a participant after that time. My purpose is to act as a neutral monitor and guide, to ask questions, and to give opinions as needed. My only actual authority comes from my lack of bias and POV. If at any time you think that I'm acting outside my purpose or have lost my objectivity, please feel free to discuss it on my [[User talk:~~~|user talk page]]. So, with those understandings, let's get started. Regards, ~~~~

Anticipating objections

• Why not just revise 3O to do or allow this?

3O is extremely useful for what it is: a very lightweight nonbinding place to get a quick (frequently inexpert) opinion about a dispute. I'd argue that 3O probably settles more disputes than any other form of DR at WP and those which it doesn't settle it usually at least improves. NPPR will be the diametrical opposite of 3O: it's heavy duty, highly experienced, highly involved DR for those disputes where some of the participants won't even agree to ordinary DR.