User:Isaacl/Community/Content dispute resolution toolbox#Revisit respite

The round-robin discussion phase consists of multiple rounds. A moderator determines

when the previous round is complete and a subsequent round should be opened.

Each editor can make one comment per round. Other than minor typographical or

grammatical corrections, editors cannot alter their comments.

Moderators use their discretion to determine when to proceed to the next round,

and when to exit the round-robin phase of discussion.

Many discussions can be flooded by a small number of vocal participants. This

can increase animosity and prevent other voices from being heard, particularly

given the disparate time zones of the Wikipedia community. By throttling

comments, rapid escalation of contention can be dampened, and there is a greater

opportunity for moderating opinions to be expressed.

Specifically for brainstorming discussions, a round-robin phase will give each interested party an opportunity to weigh in. This provides incentive for editors to prioritize their ideas, and reduces the incentive to skip to discussing ideas rather than brainstorming new ones.

Structure the discussion to produce a summary of each

option under discussion, with a list of pros and cons for each. Where the con

of an option is simply the mirror image of the pro of another, generally prefer

to list the pro and omit the con.

Once the summary is ready, participants can discuss their preferred option in

terms of the pros and cons and their relative weights. A closer can see the

importance placed on each by the partcipants and thus balance their support

accordingly.

Discussions often entangle many aspects together. Isolating individual

advantages and disadvantages provides a way to make discrete progress towards

greater understanding of the options. Having an ongoing summary also makes it easier for

new or returning participants to catch up on the latest state of discussion,

thereby saving time. A final discussion to determine the preferred option can

focus on the pros and cons, and a closer can evalute the discussion within the

context of pros and cons.

During discussion, participants can reach a consensus for a "revisit respite":

the issue under discussion should only be revisited if a significant new

consideration is introduced, or a specific amount of time (a "respite period")

has passed. Interested parties can ask the discussion closer if the issue should be revisited before the

respite period is over. The closer can delegate this responsibility to someone

else. If neither the closer nor any delegates are available, then the decision

shall be made by a discussion among uninvolved administrators at the

administrators' noticeboard.

By providing a semi-binding conclusion to a dispute, there is incentive to work

towards a best-compromise solution. This also alleviates the fatigue of having

to discuss a topic repeatedly and the consequences of participant

attrition.