WIKIPEDIA:REQUESTS FOR COMMENT CONTENT DISPUTE RESOLUTION

The Arbitration Committee has opened this request for comment regarding the dispute resolution process for content disputes in order to gauge community opinion on the subject and to gather potential ideas for reform.

All editors are invited to present comments or proposals concerning any aspect of content dispute resolution. The Committee is especially interested in the following questions:

Are the current methods available for resolving disputes over article content adequate? What changes could be made to improve this aspect of Wikipedia?
What role should the Committee play in resolving content disputes? Should the Committee rule on content directly, or impose special procedures for resolving long-standing content disputes?
How should the Committee approach allegations of improper use of sources? Should the Committee rule on the reliability of particular sources, or place additional restrictions on the sources which may be used to resolve a dispute? Would the creation of a body dedicated to ruling on source reliability be beneficial?
How should the Committee approach allegations of POV-pushing? Should the Committee rule on the proper weight of certain points of view?
Would the creation of a dedicated body for ruling on content disputes, or a dedicated body for ruling on source reliability, be beneficial?

Editors presenting specific proposals for reform should do so in the proposal section. Other comments should be made in the views section.

Views

View by John Carter

The current methods work well enough in most all cases. There are unfortunately a few where, for whatever reason, they don't seem to work so well. It may make sense, in those instances, to have some other means of resolving disputes.
I would hope that the Arbitration Committee refrain from involving itself too much in determining content disputes. This is in no way any sort of criticism or denigration of the Committee, but I don't think the committee have ever necessarily been elected on the basis of their having editors knowledgable about the entire range of wikipedia's content, and any such rulings made without such expertise would likely be called into question by some parties.
Ruling of reliability of sources has the same problems as ruling on content above.
Ruling on POV would be very difficult, unless it could be reasonably sure that all relevant POVs have been represented, with is itself probably hard.
I personally believe having a dedicated body to work on content- and sourcing-related questions would be very beneficial. There may be some difficulty in selecting people for such a body, but I think those difficulties may well likely be less problematic than the problems that are faced and often much more difficult to resolve without the presence of such a body. John Carter ( talk) 21:03, 9 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Users who endorse this view

jbolden1517 ^Talk 23:27, 9 May 2009 (UTC) reply
AndrewRT( Talk) 23:47, 9 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Ceedjee ( talk) 07:26, 10 May 2009 (UTC) reply

View by Durova

Although most Wikipedians are reasonable and collaborative, few ones who aren't tend to come to the attention of site administration and eventually--in some instances--to arbitration. In nearly all occasions where the Committee becomes involved, unreasonable individuals also violate conduct policies. This is useful because it allows the Committee to sanction conduct (misrepresentation of sources, forum shopping etc.) which in turn removes uncollaborative individuals from the discussion. If this is done properly the remaining editors can usually collaborate.

For about the last year and a half the Committee has strayed away from its former practice of identifying and remedying primary aggressors. Last year it substituted discretionary sanctions, which were often ineffective and sometimes created new problems of their own. More recently ArbCom has tended toward the "nuclear option", sanctioning more aggressively--and perhaps indiscriminately. Neither is a workable alternative to sanctioning primary aggressors; the more recent trend runs the risk of validating and rewarding mudslinging campaigns. This risks a chilling effect in which productive editors fear to contribute to controversial topics in any way at all, lest their wiki-reputations be ruined despite their best efforts to be helpful.

If "content dispute resolution" is to become a new attempt to circumvent the Committee's central function of identifying and remedying primary aggressors, then I strongly discourage the experiment. Fundamentally disruptive individuals are talented at subverting processes; this is why they wind up at arbitration. If an exceptionally well-designed process were established with incorruptible volunteers, the disruptive editors would set about ruining the wiki-reputations of its volunteers.

This RfC opens at a time when the site's longest arbitration case is nearly five months old. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology opened on 12 December 2008 and is the longest arbitration in site history. Content dispute resolution is outside ArbCom's mandate: content is the realm of MedCom. At present ArbCom is having difficulty addressing its core mission, which renders this an inopportune moment for an RfC that presumptively expands ArbCom's scope and function radically. The community need not seek ArbCom's stamp of approval to manage content.

Users who endorse this view

Durova^Charge! 22:56, 9 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Ryan Postlethwaite^{See
the mess I've created or
let's have banter} 23:02, 9 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Anomie ⚔ 23:09, 9 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Nifboy ( talk) 23:13, 9 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Xavexgoem ( talk) 01:21, 10 May 2009 (UTC) reply
NW ( Talk) ^{(
How am I doing?)} 02:07, 10 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Davewild ( talk) 08:20, 10 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Yes. "remove[.] uncollaborative individuals from the discussion [...] the remaining editors can usually collaborate." SilkTork * ^YES! 09:31, 10 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Apoc2400 ( talk) 10:36, 10 May 2009 (UTC) reply
CarolMooreDC ( talk) 23:55, 10 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Rd232 ^talk 01:57, 11 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Ynhockey ^(
Talk) 00:23, 12 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Jasy jatere ( talk) 11:03, 12 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Yes, certainly. Steve Crossin ^Talk/_{Help us mediate!} 21:55, 13 May 2009 (UTC) reply
– Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:08, 13 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Cirt ( talk) 19:39, 15 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Indeed, clearly they are having difficulties, and enacting the nuclear approach was entirely avoidable. I think it comes back to what I've put plainly and indirectly on many occasions - good judgement is needed; though not applicable to all, some arbs need to change aspects of their approach, by spending more time and effort being receptive to the community criticism & feedback they receive, and putting aside their personal nonsensical issues/vendettas that revolve on perception & systematic bias (we're not interested in them) - frankly, it's often a case of choice, not one of incapability. Overall, very little I can disagree with in this view that I would echo (nearly) all of it - hopefully, firmer attempts to resolve the actual issues can be made so that everyone moves forward. Ncmvocalist ( talk) 16:20, 16 May 2009 (UTC) reply
— Ched : ? 23:30, 16 May 2009 (UTC) reply
hmwith τ 10:11, 24 May 2009 (UTC) reply
-- RegentsPark ( My narrowboat) 20:29, 2 June 2009 (UTC) reply
John Z ( talk) 20:42, 2 June 2009 (UTC) reply

View by Ryan Postlethwaite

I believe that our current content dispute resolution works well. The problem in just about any large dispute is mostly not about content, it's user conduct. Although on the surface the content issues look to be causing the problems, when you look deeper into it you see that it is in fact users failing to work collaboratively and not fully embracing our current dispute resolution methods.

I'm truly of the impression that if you sort the conduct issues, you solve the content dispute. If there's no conduct issues, then content RfC's, third opinions and mediation almost always solve the issues at hand. I'm finding it hard to think of any content dispute that was so egregious that it couldn't be solved with our current mechanisms when there were no underlying conduct problems. I think the Arbitration Committee would be best served looking at earlier methods of conduct dispute resolution - streamlining the conduct RfC process and perhaps developing a few others would really help solve many content disputes. What we don't need at this time is a new committee dictating content - that goes against many of our key editing philosophies.

Users who endorse this view

Ryan Postlethwaite^{See
the mess I've created or
let's have banter} 23:00, 9 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Anomie ⚔ 23:09, 9 May 2009 (UTC) reply
The Committee must be the end of a functional dispute resolution system, not its sole component. [[Sam Korn]] ^(smoddy) 23:21, 9 May 2009 (UTC) reply
I tend to agree with this, the main thing arbcom can do better is point folks the right directin to sort it out and maybe give a time frame. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 23:53, 9 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Solve conduct, solve content. Xavexgoem ( talk) 01:22, 10 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Davewild ( talk) 08:21, 10 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Yes. "Solve conduct, solve content." SilkTork * ^YES! 09:29, 10 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Yes. Rebecca ( talk) 11:19, 10 May 2009 (UTC) reply
CarolMooreDC ( talk) 23:55, 10 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Ynhockey ^(
Talk) 00:24, 12 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Jasy jatere ( talk) 11:04, 12 May 2009 (UTC) reply
— Ashley Y 02:03, 13 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Gigs ( talk) 19:21, 13 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Definitely. If the conduct issues are solved, content issues can be solved too. Steve Crossin ^Talk/_{Help us mediate!} 22:01, 13 May 2009 (UTC) reply
– Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:09, 13 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Well said. -- Kanonkas : Talk 18:02, 14 May 2009 (UTC) reply
yea, most of the time. — Ched : ? 23:32, 16 May 2009 (UTC) reply
hmwith τ 10:18, 24 May 2009 (UTC) reply
☺ Coppertwig ( talk) 23:10, 31 May 2009 (UTC) reply
-- RegentsPark ( My narrowboat) 20:31, 2 June 2009 (UTC) reply
John Z ( talk) 20:43, 2 June 2009 (UTC) reply
Sunray ( talk) 21:33, 2 June 2009 (UTC) reply
Locke9k ( talk) 21:01, 10 June 2009 (UTC) reply

View by Jbolden1517

I'm not sure our current system works for content dispute works well enough. But I think having arbcom maintain its no content review policy is excellent for separation of powers reasons. Further the goals of the two types of dispute resolution are different. Personality disputes are unlikely to filter out to the wider internet community en mass but can flame up quickly and escalate very fast. Content disputes conversely are likely to filter out to the wider internet community and thus Wikipedia needs strong support and by in on content from the community as a whole. In other words efficiency with respect to personality disputes and correctness with respect to content is probably the best overall theme. Further, If arbcom had positions on content it would be more difficult for those to evolve with time. So I definitely do not believe arbcom should rule on content.

Where I do think there is potential for enhancement in dispute would be enhance the authority and scope of medcom. Medcom members should stand for election the same as arbcom. Pages can be sent to Medcom for binding mediation (essentially what article probation means today) and that failure to participate in good faith in a mediation process can result in disciplinary action. Mediation cabal should handle non binding voluntary mediations. Right now the two groups are too similar in their function.

Users who endorse this view

jbolden1517 ^Talk 23:27, 9 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Cirt ( talk) 19:38, 15 May 2009 (UTC) reply

View by Xavexgoem

I'm a coordinator for the mediation cabal (MedCab). I'll copy and paste the questions and answer. By "DR", I mean all processes aside from ArbCom for brevity.

Are the current methods available for resolving disputes over article content adequate? What changes could be made to improve this aspect of Wikipedia?

Yes, in process. However, DR is currently understaffed; there are many disputes but not many mediators. To compound the problem, a huge amount of content disputes end up at AN/I and other sinkholes where it's difficult (if not impossible) to control the structure of the discussion. There are not many administrators with mediation experience, either.

What role should the Committee play in resolving content disputes? Should the Committee rule on content directly, or impose special procedures for resolving long-standing content disputes?

Content disputes should be kicked down to MedCom. However, ArbCom needs to bear in mind that the primary reason for RFAR is user conduct that has exhausted attempts at resolution through consensus. Disputes that haven't been through DR should go through DR first. When that fails as a result of user conduct (often), it goes to ArbCom. Once that's done, the dispute should go back to DR, as the basic content dispute usually remains. This immediate return to DR is not common enough.

The structure is already in place with MedCom/MedCab and ArbCom, but back and forth between the two is rare. I don't think there is need for additional structures.

How should the Committee approach allegations of improper use of sources? Should the Committee rule on the reliability of particular sources, or place additional restrictions on the sources which may be used to resolve a dispute? Would the creation of a body dedicated to ruling on source reliability be beneficial?

No DR process is designed to impose, and that is as it should be. If someone is using sources improperly, it is a result of either a lack of clue (V, SYNTH, RS, and ultimately CONSENSUS) or gaming of the system.

In the first case: Getting people to understand the legitimate use of sources works on a case-by-case basis; often, mentorship will help, but I plead to the committee not to dictate the terms between the mentor and the mentoree. Mentorship is rare enough, and imposing anything adds pressure counter to the friendly teacher/student setup.

In the second case: It is at ArbCom's discretion whether an editor is gaming the system (lawyering, filibustering, etc). If they are, the matter should be dealt with as any disruption would be.

How should the Committee approach allegations of POV-pushing? Should the Committee rule on the proper weight of certain points of view?

Absolutely not. It should be treated exactly as the sourcing problem above. ArbCom was not elected to represent anything or anybody content-side.

Would the creation of a dedicated body for ruling on content disputes, or a dedicated body for ruling on source reliability, be beneficial?

I think it's far too early to tell whether a binding content solution is a good option. At any rate, the burden should fall on ArbCom to ever impose anything that drastic. Creating further DR processes will just confuse matters, and putting mediators in that spot will have drastic effects on other mediatorial bodies (from claims of the system being broken, claims of mediators being partial, etc).

Users who endorse this view

Xavexgoem ( talk) 01:50, 10 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Jasy jatere ( talk) 11:05, 12 May 2009 (UTC) reply
-- Kanonkas : Talk 18:05, 14 May 2009 (UTC) reply

View by Nifboy

As much fun as it would be to get certain longstanding content disputes finally resolved from "on high" (thinking specifically of Episodes and Characters here) I fear it would politicize the process and turn policy into a kind of majority-rules by proxy vote.

That said, for articles under an active Project, that project turns into the de facto "dedicated body for ruling on content disputes/source reliability". It's how something like the mass-merging of Pokemon articles can actually happen without editors kicking and screaming the whole way through. Unfortunately, that void is very difficult to fill for content disputes because of the subject knowledge required.

Near as I can tell the RS noticeboard does that job for sources. To me, source reliability is like Verifiability in practice: if someone asks "What makes this source reliable?" you need to have a good answer, without which the source goes away.

Users who endorse this view

Nifboy ( talk) 01:39, 10 May 2009 (UTC) reply

View by Jclemens

If there's one thing lacking in our current system, it's a centralized body that can authoritatively pick a "winner" and "loser" when all other options have been exhausted. While bureaucracy is to be avoided at all costs, it would be very nice to have a court to which content disputes can be taken, policy-based decisions rendered, and results published and considered normative until changed. In one recent content dispute User:Arcayne and I agree that we have fundamentally incompatible views on the use of primary sources in Daybreak (Battlestar Galactica): we look at all the same policies, and in good faith read them in different ways. A case for mediation resulted in a user with about 1/10th our combined edits trying to adjudicate--he was, through no fault of his own, out of his depth. We could really use a "court" of people who're familiar enough with nuances of policy to make such calls--or propose a novel and previously unconsidered compromise--when good faith efforts between earnest and civil yet disagreeing editors fail.

Frankly, I'd also like to see a WP:FICT issued from "on high". When consensus breaks down in ways that prevent the entire encyclopedia from moving forward, the community could really benefit from a logjam-breaking group who would, much like ArbCom, be composed of senior, respected folks who can hear the arguments, make a pronouncement, and that pronouncement would be the "new normal" for Wikipedia.

Users who endorse this view

Jclemens ( talk) 03:00, 10 May 2009 (UTC) reply
This is the heart of the limitation of the current ArbCom system; two opposing views expressed civilly and with good faith and supporting references will keep an article in a constant state of flux, with no stable/definitive (yeah, I know it is a Wiki) version and no means in which to resolve it. A method of final DR might be needed in such cases, to determine how WP:Due weight should permit which viewpoint should be of precedence. LessHeard vanU ( talk) 10:40, 10 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Endorse the view of the problem; how to constitute a suitable deciding body is a little more complicated. If there were a "court" there would typically be only one or two people with competence in any one subject, and their views would decide the issue in an arbitrary way. I'd prefer binding arbitration, for in any particular case it might be possible to find someone acceptable. DGG ( talk) 01:56, 11 May 2009 (UTC) reply
This will happen at some point. I'd like to see it sooner, but it will probably be later. - Peregrine Fisher ( talk) ( contribs) 16:36, 11 May 2009 (UTC) reply
I'd like to see it sooner, too. We have to evolve a little beyond the extreme ends of the spectrum that we currently have. On one end, we have ArbCom, which involves itself in conduct issues (pov, conduct and socking) and is in effect the nuclear option. It also moves about as fast as molasses in Chicago winter. On the other hand, we have MedCab or mediation, which is either staffed with well-intentioned but woefully inexperienced editors who have niether the time nor the understanding to resolve complex content issues. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:51, 12 May 2009 (UTC) reply
— Edokter • Talk • 16:50, 12 May 2009 (UTC) reply
— Carl ( CBM · talk) 02:05, 13 May 2009 (UTC) reply
John Carter ( talk) 19:26, 14 May 2009 (UTC) reply
This should be used rarely, but there are definitely cases where a higher body is needed. Karanacs ( talk) 19:50, 14 May 2009 (UTC) reply
HighKing ( talk) 16:53, 15 May 2009 (UTC) The end of the road should be a destination. reply
Endorse. It could prevent a lot of headaches. -- Scott Free ( talk) 02:47, 18 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Peter jackson ( talk) 15:21, 22 May 2009 (UTC) reply
I think we do need a form of authoritative content dispute resolution, but it should be reserved for the most serious and intractable problems. Otherwise, bureaucracy replaces discussion. Sandstein 20:25, 2 June 2009 (UTC) reply
Agree with Sandstein. We need to address content. Else content is decided by the person who can nicely handout the longest. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 04:13, 25 January 2011 (UTC) reply

View by SilkTork

When I have mediated disputes and those involved were reasonable and willing to negotiate, the dispute would be resolved quickly and, so far as I am aware, permanently; when one or more of those involved were unreasonable and unwilling to negotiate, the dispute would linger and any solution would not stick. So the key point in any dispute, be it a content dispute or a behaviour dispute, is the attitude of those involved. ArbCom's role is to look at the behaviour of users to see if they are unreasonable and unwilling to negotiate - and to put remedies in place to prevent unreasonable and unwilling users from disrupting the project. There is no need for ArbCom to look into content issues - that is a different process. Mediation is not about issuing sanctions or making rulings, it's about helping people in dispute to reach a solution that all parties agree to. A committee is not needed for that - mediation is best done by a calm, patient and detached individual that the people involved can trust.

The question of sourcing and POV issues is the same. ArbCom should only get involved to deal with individuals who are unreasonable and unwilling to negotiate. Take away the unreasonable and unwilling individuals and the community can generally work toward solutions.

ArbCom could work more effectively for the community if they ignored the content and other issues of a dispute, and simply examined the evidence of disruptive, unreasonable and unwilling behaviour, and then acted swiftly to sanction those who are preventing the community from working toward a solution.

Users who endorse this view

SilkTork * ^YES! 09:26, 10 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Davewild ( talk) 10:19, 10 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Xavexgoem ( talk) 10:24, 10 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Anomie ⚔ 14:53, 10 May 2009 (UTC) reply
broadly agree with this. There are situations where ArbCom could be involved in content decisions to the extent of suggesting formal mediation, a content RfC, or a poll for a naming dispute, however in general, ArbCom should avoid ruling on content or sources. PhilKnight ( talk) 16:08, 10 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Skomorokh 18:49, 10 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Jasy jatere ( talk) 11:06, 12 May 2009 (UTC) reply

View by LessHeard vanU

There appears to be the need for a body that can make judgements on the validity of sources, the interpretation of such references, the primacy of a viewpoint referenced by such sources, the application of WP:Due weight of other viewpoints, etc. that is independent of the actions of the various editors and also the other processes of DR (including ArbCom, MedCab, Projects, etc). Such a group can then present their independent findings to the various DR bodies who can then incorporate them in their processes. In a case where there is no issue of conduct problems, such a body could be the final venue of purely content dispute resolution.

Now, if anyone can find this actual wand... LessHeard vanU ( talk) 10:51, 10 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Users who endorse this view

LessHeard vanU ( talk) 10:51, 10 May 2009 (UTC) reply
PirateSmackK^Arrrr! 13:53, 11 May 2009 (UTC) reply
John Carter ( talk) 19:25, 14 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:09, 15 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Laurent ( talk) 15:38, 23 June 2009 (UTC) reply

View by 89.101.220.70

More effort needs to be put into establishing the genuine nature of disputes among the relevant community of editors, rather that taking statements of involved editors at face value. Once the Arbitration committee gets involved in a "content" dispute, they legitimise it as a "genuine dispute" and thus as a dispute that has to be taken seriously among the community. As we all know, editors are prone to warring and hardening into opposing groups. On occasion (maybe even more-often-that-not), so-called "content" disputes before the arbitration committee are more a case of these kinds of "hardened" disputes between editors, rather than genuinely about content. Prudence should be exercised by the committee so as to not legitimise superficial "content" disputes but to resolve the underlying warring and tribalism.

The the committee should retain their current boundary of not adjudicating content disputes - but also need to be careful not to implicitly legitimise such "content" disputes. In sum, the committee should stay away from content altogether.

Users who endorse this view

View by KimvdLinde

To answer the questions first:

Are the current methods available for resolving disputes over article content adequate?
No, if it was adequate, we would not have this RFC, and the most difficult cases would actually be solved in a reasonable time frame, and not continue for years.
What changes could be made to improve this aspect of Wikipedia?
All possible tools are available for voluntary content dispute resolution. The problem is when that conflict cannot be solved amicable.
What role should the Committee play in resolving content disputes?
None. ArbCom is for conduct issues.
Should the ArbCom Committee rule on content directly, or impose special procedures for resolving long-standing content disputes?
No. ArbCom is for conduct issues.
How should the Committee approach allegations of improper use of sources? Should the Committee rule on the reliability of particular sources, or place additional restrictions on the sources which may be used to resolve a dispute? Would the creation of a body dedicated to ruling on source reliability be beneficial?
No, it cannot rule on content.
How should the Committee approach allegations of POV-pushing? Should the Committee rule on the proper weight of certain points of view?
No, it cannot rule on content.
Would the creation of a dedicated body for ruling on content disputes, or a dedicated body for ruling on source reliability, be beneficial?
Yes, but only if done right.

Generally, the conduct arbcom does not have sufficient knowledge of each and every field to render meaningful content decisions. A obvious example was the ruling that Science is not a point of view, which underscore the issue.

Content dispute ArbCom

Many conduct disputes are the result of prolonged content disputes, in which the existing dispute resolution has failed. The current arbcom can not resolve those issues, as they are limited to conduct issues. To adequately deal with content issues, a separate ArbCom needs to be created, with specific procedure on how to deal with this kind of content disputes. A general outline I envision would be:

A small groups of chosen editors who oversee the general procedures and are very familiar with WikiPedia policies, especially content policies.
A large pool of topic experts (credentials needed)
Each case is presented by the parties, with focus exclusively on the content issue.
The commission chooses three independent and uninvolved experts knowledgeable to the field of dispute who make a purely content based judgement based on the evidence presented, with the freedom to add obvious sources that are lacking.
The commission then applies the applicable Wikipedia policies and renders the final ruling.

A few remarks:

Insights change, so does content. A mechanism to amend these rulings need to be developed.
Content decisions most often are nuanced and balanced, not black-white, although the later can happen.
At times, conduct and content issues are mixed and procedures for these cases need to be developed.

Users who endorse this view

-- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 16:11, 10 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Jclemens ( talk) 22:36, 10 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Provided that the judgment might be that neither side is entirely right and the article should hedge its bets. A key difficulty here, of course, is the bias of topic experts in topics such as pseudoscience. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 06:05, 11 May 2009 (UTC) reply
I personally see serious questions regarding points 1 and 2, but if they can be overcome it might be workable. John Carter ( talk) 00:15, 15 May 2009 (UTC) reply

view by DGG

I think it is not correct that the present situation works well. The total situation works by the two sides trying to maneuver (or bully) until the key representative of one position commits an unforgivable conduct error, at which point that person can be removed. What is selected for is relative skills at Wikipedia, and relative emotional stability under pressure. To the extent that our decisions are to be based on the attempt to find a correctly neutral position, not internal and external politics, those factors are not relevant. What they favor is the established editors, who have throughly learned the rules and have to some extent been selected by time for self-restraint, and whatever may be the positions they happen to hold. fortunately, their positions are not uniform, but it's a haphazard way of doing things. We do have biases. I share some of them. NPOV is a wonderful principle, but almost nobody can actually apply it to anything they really care about, and experience shows that anyone who edits where they do not actually care will inevitably come to favor one or another position. This creates certain difficulties in how to do things better, so I am not immediately proposing a solution. One that I am quite sure will not work is letting arb com handle it; they have difficulty enough with their current role. Maybe there is not one, but that doesn't mean we should pretend there is no problem. DGG ( talk) 02:15, 11 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Users who endorse this view

ArbCom's current role in content resolution is functionally equivalent to a penalty box. It tilts the dispute using unrelated criteria. Nifboy ( talk) 02:30, 11 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Though I'm not quite as concerned that those with self-restraint "win" regardless of merit or argument, this is an apt summation of the state of play. Skomorokh 14:56, 11 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Jclemens ( talk) 16:09, 11 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Peregrine Fisher ( talk) ( contribs) 16:41, 11 May 2009 (UTC) reply
I would add that, in addition to people finding it difficult to be neutral, there really are cases of irreconciliable, equally valid, good-faith readings of policy. We do ourselves no favors by pretending the problem doesn't exist. Ray ^Talk 04:05, 12 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Indeed. Stifle ( talk) 09:05, 13 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Agree with Nifboy completely. Steve Crossin ^Talk/_{Help us mediate!} 21:50, 13 May 2009 (UTC) reply
The problem exists. John Carter ( talk) 19:27, 14 May 2009 (UTC) reply
I've seen too many instances of the polite POV pushers who goad the editor trying to present neutral, policy-compliant article edits into bad contact; the neutral editor gets sanctioned and effectively removed from the debate, and the POV pushers get the article to look the way then want it. Karanacs ( talk) 19:54, 14 May 2009 (UTC) reply
This. The only way to "win" a content dispute is to turn it into a conduct dispute and wait for the editor you disagree with to be sanctioned.— S Marshall ^Talk/ _Cont 00:44, 15 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Ding. As a matter of fact, some outside analysis of wikipedia's DR system concurs (at least in part) with this. Protonk ( talk) 20:44, 16 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Well articulated, and probably the most accurate view I've seen. — Ched : ? 23:40, 16 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Unfortunately this is always going to be the case as long as the majority of the admin corps has no intellectual heft. It is easier to recognize incivility than to recognize someone making uninformed edits. Easier to evaluate a dispute based off whether or not someone is part of the Wiki-mainstream than if they are making intellectually sound arguments and edits. I think we'd need a pretty significant culture change to make much progress on this issue. -- JayHenry ( talk) 02:38, 18 May 2009 (UTC) reply
This is an accurate summary of the current situation. We have no final authority on content disputes, so we put the parties through a test of bureaucracy and patience until one of them breaks and behaves badly. I'm not sure what the solution is, but the current system is not adequate. — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 16:22, 21 May 2009 (UTC) reply
On contentious topics, the current system selects editors not for their knowledge or neutrality, but for their strength of will / endurance / willingness to game the system and battle through the dispute resolution bureaucracy, etc. Sortition could hardly be a worse way to select who gets to win contentious content disputes - and surely we can do better than that. Rd232 ^talk 17:44, 21 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Very true. — Avenue ( talk) 02:25, 26 May 2009 (UTC) reply
I agree that the current system is broken - the idea that you can solve issues of Truth merely by finding out which side is being impolite is Wrong, even if it often works on practice. Also, Arbcomm should remember that it isn't a court and wiki isn't a bureaucracy William M. Connolley ( talk) 21:51, 1 June 2009 (UTC) reply
Very well put, DGG. Though I would add that this does not mean that sanctioning users with conduct problem is not a good thing. It's just not sufficient if our purpose is to build a good, neutral encyclopedia. Sandstein 20:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC) reply
Agree - we need a committee, whether Arbcom or other, to solve certain content disputes. Laurent ( talk) 15:44, 23 June 2009 (UTC) reply

View by Steve Crossin

I, like Xavexgoem, mediate at the Mediation Cabal, and I, as well, will respond to the commmitte's questions in a point-by-point form, with some follow up after that. I hope that my input will help.

Are the current methods available for resolving disputes over article content adequate? What changes could be made to improve this aspect of Wikipedia?

I somewhat agree with Xavexgoem that the existing processes are somewhat adequate, however I do think there is a key component missing, and several weaknesses along the way to arbitration, as well as a great shortage of experienced mediators. Mediating isn't that bad, and I'd encourage everyone to give it a shot. I've done a diagram of the User Conduct / Content Disputes dispute resolution processess, and the weakness that I see in regards to solving user conduct issues, primarialy that users can game the system easily, and can stonewall, block the consensus of many editors, and hamper mediation processes, while doing so civilly. Additionally, while mediation is voluntary, the fact there is no binding mediation means long, drawn out attempts at resolving disputes, if met with users who aren't willing to compromise, could just lead to the problem continuing, without a result that solves the issues. Basically, with user conduct issues, binding resolution can be made, solving the problem, however with content issues, if a party is not satisfied with the outcome, regardless of consensus, they can continue stonewalling/edit warring/hampering consensus, etc. This is why I feel, an additional component, binding mediation, used in rare cases, where all other methods of resolving a content dispute, have failed, yet there still are inadequate user conduct issues for the case to proceed to ArbCom.

What role should the Committee play in resolving content disputes? Should the Committee rule on content directly, or impose special procedures for resolving long-standing content disputes?

The committee shouldn't have any role in solving content disputes, I feel the Committee is struggling enough already handling the current open RFARs, and has enough of a load already. I also think there should be a separation of power, and I'm uncomfortable with delegaing even more power to the Arbitration Committee. I would recommend that the Mediation Committee either be modified to allow them to make binding decisions at mediation, or separate panel of experienced mediators be set up, in the case that other prior forms of dispute resolution fail, and binding resoltion is required.

However, I agree that any process set up should be set up via community discussion and proposals, rather than a mandate from the Arbitration Committee, and it would be better if this RFC was re-opened and conducted by the community. Steve Crossin ^Talk/_{Help us mediate!} 01:48, 14 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Users who endorse this view

Steve Crossin ^Talk/_{Help us mediate!} 01:41, 14 May 2009 (UTC) reply
I'd be interested in seeing more definition in how to determine which cases need binding mediation, but overall I agree with this view. Karanacs ( talk) 19:56, 14 May 2009 (UTC) reply
I completely agree on how editors can game the system - essentially stonewalling and not compromising. If we accept that *not* compromising is a right - that some disputes *are* split along white and black lines, then this project currently has no process or policy or enforcement procedure.... I believe that it needs one. In some cases, this will mean making rulings related to content. -- HighKing ( talk) 17:08, 15 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Certainly worthwhile to have a community discussion about this idea. Cirt ( talk) 19:40, 15 May 2009 (UTC) reply
perhaps the best starting point for now. — Ched : ? 23:42, 16 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Endorse as a valid general view of the situation and the need to encourage emphasis on the mediation process.-- Scott Free ( talk) 03:01, 18 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Sounds good to me. - Peregrine Fisher ( talk) ( contribs) 03:33, 18 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Dlabtot ( talk) 17:49, 18 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Laurent ( talk) 15:46, 23 June 2009 (UTC) reply

View #1 by Scott Free

Because Arbitration openly professes to focus on behavior over content issues, it is therefore in practice not the final step in the dispute resolution process -the content problem usually remains essentially unchanged after an arbitration decision. Therefore in theory it serves primarily to apply corrective behavioral solutions in order to allow the disrupted dispute resolution process to resume in a proper manner. Ergo, in practice a decision is rendered, and usually it does help, more or less - but in theory there should ensue a process of fruitful content dispute resolution that is made possible because of the corrective arbcom decision. But in practice this rarely happens for various reasons, (one of them because that the parties still lack basic practical education with Wikipedia policies and mediation skills, another is because there is simply a lack of participation on the article).

Proposed. -- Scott Free ( talk) 14:25, 18 May 2009 (UTC) reply

View #2 by Scott Free

2 reasons why the current approach of arbcom is not as effective as it could be-

1-To state that arbitration is the final step in a dispute resolution process with the caveat that the focus is on user behaviour and not content isn't necessarily an effective approach because a) most serious disputes are ultimately inherently content-based; b) in theory, the end of the dispute resolution process should be the resolution of the dispute (which as stated in a, is essentially a content problem, of arriving at a formulation of an article, or part of article that is deemed of encyclopedic quality and acceptable to all parties involved.)

2- It is very complicated to effectively enforce blocks and bans in a system that is internet-based, anonymous, and with free registration. Therefore it isn't really that practical to have an approach that focuses on sanctions based on user behavior, i.e. sanctions that are inherently difficult to enforce effectively.

Proposed. -- Scott Free ( talk) 14:25, 18 May 2009 (UTC) reply

View #3 by Scott Free

I think one of the biggest hurdles in the debate is the widespread misconception that consensus should be the ultimate reference for proper content. Policy should be the ultimate reference for proper content. Policy should supercede consensus. Hence the need to have a responsible group that rules on questions of content in reference to Wikipedia policy.

If Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, then let the final resolution process be editorial-based and rational; an article, in theory, is more amenable to rational and collective analysis than the internet edit-trail of an anonymous, changeable identity.

Proposed. -- Scott Free ( talk) 14:25, 18 May 2009 (UTC) reply

View by Mishlai

(Numbering below is done for organization only, and not related to question numbers.)

Official, binding content decisions from a small body of decision makers is deeply problematic. The existence of such an authority would shift responsibility for the most highly disputed content from the community as a whole - a nebulous "us" which is difficult to attack - to the authoritative body -a distinct "them" which is easy to attack both on and off-wiki. I believe that the existance of such a body, capable of making authoritative and lasting content decisions would disrupt Wikipedia's guiding principle of consensus. Wikipedia itself would be described to have a POV on certain topics, and I believe this would weaken and discredit the project.
Consensus can and does change. I believe that some of the flexibility inherent to that principle would be lost in a model where official content decisions were made.
While it is true that there are disputes in which well-informed, well-behaved good faith editors are unable to disagree, this is not necessarily unacceptable. When the dispute is so difficult that no compromise can be agreed upon between good editors, how can we presume to choose a single answer? To take the position that all disputes should be resolvable in a final sense is to imply that there must be a side that is more correct than the other, or to say that we are in fact more interested in ending the dispute than in treating all viewpoints evenly. This contradicts behavior in academic circles, where experts may respect each other in a field and yet disagree vehemently. It would be unwise to force agreement or outcome in such cases.
The state of disagreement has meaning in its own right, and is a form of information that should not be erased by ending the argument artificially.
Mediation is the appropriate way to deal with prolonged good-faith disputes. Ideally non-binding, and with the understanding that a resolution may not be reached, and that this is not necessarily failure but may be indicative of a topic about which it is appropriate for reasonable people to be divided.
Continuing to devote large amounts of energy to such disputes is a waste of our most precious resource - the time of good editors. Ideally "disagreement" could be a stable state that did not require great effort to maintain. It is undesirable to have situations where the editor who gets frustrated and goes away first, loses. We want our best to be out there editing constructively, and not imprisoned by the need to provide counterweight in a dispute.
I believe the absence of a way for disagreement to be a stable, low-maintenance state is one of the fundamental problems we face. The community would benefit from a way of agreeing to disagree, if such a thing could be found. Mishlai ( talk) 04:46, 19 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Users who endorse this view

☺ Coppertwig ( talk) 23:10, 31 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Hans Adler 18:57, 10 July 2009 (UTC) reply

View by User:Peter jackson

First of all, I do think something should be done, but I don't know what.

I want to expand on something mentioned by Jclemens above. A lot of the discussion here seems to be thinking in terms of cases like the Israel/Palestine dispute, where you have endless armies going at it indefinitely. What Jclemens mentioned above is the sort of case where a dispute is intractable for the opposite reason. Hardly anyone is interested, so a consensus cannot be established. RfCs tend to produce little response in many cases. Note that what a number of people say above about dealing with behaviour doesn't seem to apply in this sort of case. Both ArbCom & RFC/U, as far as I understand the rules, require three users to complain about the same behaviour of the same user on the same article before they'll even consider doing anything about it. This allows POV pushers to get away with murder in less-frequented articles, & then add or redirect links to their propaganda. I've seen quite a bit of this, though of course I can't name names without violating AGF.

There's been a suggestion on this page somewhere of a special role for projects. Here I can be a bit more specific without naming names. Most of my WP work has been in the field of Buddhism. Most of the WP editors in the field are, unsurprisingly, Buddhists. More to the point, though, they are Western(ized) Buddhists. They represent a particular type of Buddhism overwhelmingly. They often argue that Buddhist writers are more reliable sources than outside scholars. That has a certain measure of plausibility to it, until you realize that what it actually means in practice is their Buddhist writers, the ones who write in English & are published because they're popular in the West. Downplaying scholars who've studied untranslated literature or carried out anthropological field studies downplays most of the Buddhism that actually exists in the real world.

Peter jackson ( talk) 16:01, 22 May 2009 (UTC) reply

PS Imagine the Christianity project almost entirely consisting of liberal Christians. that's the sort of analogy to think about. Peter jackson ( talk) 16:04, 22 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Additional comment

[1] is an interesting comment by a longstanding editor (now retired). Although similar things happen in real life, it might be considered that a system that results in people considering it advances their cause to misbehave & be punished must have something wrong with it. Peter jackson ( talk) 10:34, 22 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Users who endorse this view

The problem of disputes that few are interested in, and RfCs garnering no or almost no responses is huge and frequently overlooked. Dlabtot ( talk) 20:07, 22 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Another additional comment

The result of the system of haggling to reach "consensus" is, I think, fairly predictable:

in theory, "Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject." ( WP:DUE)
in practice, it tends to present competing views in proportion to their representation among the editors of the article

Proposals

Proposal #1 by Durova

Mark this page historical.

Users who endorse this proposal

Durova^Charge! 17:06, 10 May 2009 (UTC) reply
NW ( Talk) ^{(
How am I doing?)} 17:09, 10 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Anomie ⚔ 20:01, 10 May 2009 (UTC) reply
PhilKnight ( talk) 21:22, 10 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Xavexgoem ( talk) 01:15, 11 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Jasy jatere ( talk) 11:07, 12 May 2009 (UTC) reply
— Ashley Y 02:14, 13 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Davewild ( talk) 07:00, 13 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Cirt ( talk) 19:43, 15 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Proposal #2 by NuclearWarfare

ArbCom should focus on its original mandate, conduct issues. It should allow MedCom to make more binding decisions, and start referring more things to there.

Users who endorse this proposal

NW ( Talk) ^{(
How am I doing?)} 17:09, 10 May 2009 (UTC) reply
jbolden1517 ^Talk 19:31, 14 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Proposal #3 by KimvdLinde

Establish an explicit Content ArbCom as outlined above

Users who endorse this proposal

-- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 17:11, 10 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Jclemens ( talk) 22:37, 10 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Cla68 ( talk) 23:57, 14 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Peregrine Fisher ( talk) ( contribs) 01:02, 18 May 2009 (UTC) reply
-- Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 04:05, 25 January 2011 (UTC) reply

Proposal #4 by Ryan Postlethwaite

Keep the content side of dispute resolution as is. Focus more time and effort on streamlining and promoting the current conduct dispute resolution methods and find ways of developing more. Hopefully this will allow the content to fall into place with fewer conduct issues disrupting processes.

Users who endorse this proposal

Ryan Postlethwaite^{See
the mess I've created or
let's have banter} 18:45, 10 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Skomorokh 18:48, 10 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Anomie ⚔ 20:01, 10 May 2009 (UTC) reply
PhilKnight ( talk) 21:22, 10 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Xavexgoem ( talk) 01:15, 11 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Kotniski ( talk) 12:05, 11 May 2009 (UTC), but subject to the fleshing-out I've proposed at #6 below. reply
CarolMooreDC ( talk) 15:43, 11 May 2009 (UTC) Be willing to deal with the biggest abusers, even if they are popular with other admins or have an active tag team willing to attack administrators who sanction them. reply
Jasy jatere ( talk) 11:07, 12 May 2009 (UTC) reply
— Ashley Y 02:14, 13 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Davewild ( talk) 07:00, 13 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Renaissancee (talk) 21:45, 21 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Crum375 ( talk) 20:39, 23 May 2009 (UTC) reply
DGG ( talk) 02:06, 24 May 2009 (UTC) I do not like needing to agree that there is nothing we can do at a more basic level, but we do not seem to have a proposal that has enough support. DGG ( talk) 02:06, 24 May 2009 (UTC) reply
hmwith τ 10:23, 24 May 2009 (UTC) reply
☺ Coppertwig ( talk) 23:10, 31 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Sunray ( talk) 21:39, 2 June 2009 (UTC) Particularly, the part about "finding ways of developing more" dispute resolution methods. reply

Proposal #5 by SilkTork

That this ArbCom led RfC be closed, and a new community led Requests for comment/Content dispute resolution be opened. This will reduce potential drama over issues related to ArbCom, and allow a more focussed discussion.

Users who endorse this proposal

SilkTork * ^YES! 10:12, 11 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Anomie ⚔ 15:29, 11 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Yep. Steve Crossin ^Talk/_{Help us mediate!} 03:38, 14 May 2009 (UTC) reply
— S Marshall ^Talk/ _Cont 23:23, 15 May 2009 (UTC) reply
yes, as stated above. — Ched : ? 23:43, 16 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Proposal #6 by Kotniski

(a) That content be decided by consensus as it is (in theory) now.

(b) That admins and other potential mediators play an active part in steering the consensus process when it's off the rails, whether invited by the parties or not.

(c) That consensus, once reached, be enforceable until a new consensus is reached.

(d) That admins be permitted to use good judgement to effect a suitable interim solution while consensus is still being reached.

(e) That disputes about what consensus has been reached be recognized as clearly distinct from either content disputes and conduct issues, and be settled relatively quickly by admins.

(f) That complaints about conduct are made to admins and dealt with quickly and effectively.

(g) That any decision, action or inaction by admins be appealable first to the wider admin community, and then to ArbCom.

(h) That there is no need for ArbCom to accept disputes between editors in any circumstances except as described in (g).

(i) That disruptive behaviour must be dealt with firmly when and where it happens, and never rewarded in any way (for example by gaining attention or being considered evidence of an absence of consensus).

Users who endorse this proposal

Kotniski ( talk) 12:04, 11 May 2009 (UTC) (I've argued all this many times; this would be a start towards making a logical system that would actually work, and would make Wikipedia a nice place to be; in place of the confused, easily manipulated, non-system we have at the moment.) reply

Comments

I think that it not correct that debates about whether we have in fact reached consensus on resolution of a dispute are something that "can be settled relatively quickly by admins" -- rather, it's the hardest sticking point of all--especially when we have no real rules for how much consensus is necessary. DGG ( talk) 02:05, 24 May 2009 (UTC) reply

That's why I said "relatively". The point is that it cannot be settled by the same people who were arguing about the matter of substance - that just leads to an endless spiral. Of course the call might be difficult, and might require discussion among admins, and between admins and participants, but it's a call that needs to be definitively made. It's just like at AfD etc. (where one of the weaknesses is that the call is sometimes made too quickly).-- Kotniski ( talk) 06:19, 25 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Proposal #7 by John Carter

The structure for creation of ad hoc groups to deal with specific matters of policy interpretation and application, which are the instances which prove most problematic here, be created. This structure might include the following options:

(1) Possible creation of an ad hoc group to deal with any specific related issues of policy problems by either the Mediation Committee, the Arbitration Committee, or possibly by the community at large by some sort of referendum system.
(2) Specific procedures to appoint the members of the ad hoc group, possibly by some sort of mutual selection by MedCom and ArbCom
(3) Details of the duties of the ad hoc group. These would likely be limited to noting the specific questions needing to be addressed and proposing a number of alternative solutions to the problem, with the intention of arriving at the "draft proposal" stage relatively quickly, perhaps a month or so.
(4) Community involvement through RfC or similar procedures to determine which of the various proposals if any, or perhaps some combination of proposals, receive sufficient support to become enacted as policy, guideline, or essay, and, also, how to specifically address the issue which prompted the creation of this specific ad hoc group. It might even be possible to make very specific rules for such discussions, similar to those of XfDs, alloting only a limited amount of time for discussion before a solution of some sort is arrived at.

Users who endorse this proposal

John Carter ( talk) 14:13, 11 May 2009 (UTC) One advantage to having such a system would be that it would allow ArbCom cases which do involve intractible policy disagreements to be addressed by an ad hoc committee created to deal with the matter, possibly simultaneously with the starting of the ArbCom, to allow the arbitrators to deal only with the specific conduct issues they face, while allowing the other matters of policy and such to be brought before the ad hoc committee created to deal with it. John Carter ( talk) 14:13, 11 May 2009 (UTC) reply
— Carl ( CBM · talk) 14:54, 11 May 2009 (UTC) reply
I'm generally sympathetic to the idea of having subject-specific ad hoc decision task groups authorized by the community or the Arbitration Committee as a tie-breaking mechanism in some of the more intractable conflict situations. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:57, 11 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Sounds a bit too bureaucratic as phrased, but good general idea.-- Kotniski ( talk) 16:05, 11 May 2009 (UTC) reply
I could live with this. Jclemens ( talk) 16:08, 11 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Karanacs ( talk) 20:18, 15 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Endorse in principal - Assuming that this includes content dispute resolution and is integrated into the dispute resolution process as a whole.-- Scott Free ( talk) 03:14, 18 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Probably the most flexible of the current specific proposals, and therefore the best way to start--if we are going to try to do something specific at this point. DGG ( talk) 21:39, 18 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Let's try this. - Peregrine Fisher ( talk) ( contribs) 16:13, 19 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Endorse developing this proposal in more detail (via WP:PROJPOL?), but due to its vagueness, not necessarily any specific proposal that might come out of that. Rd232 ^talk 15:27, 24 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Proposal #8 by User:Rootology

See: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Committees. Simple, straightforward, use the same skeleton structure of the AC itself. People can consensus out, poll out, vote out, anything that they'd like, all they like--but this puts final content and policy arbiters selected by the community for the community as a final wall to settle disputes.

Users who endorse this proposal

rootology ( C)( T) 22:33, 19 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Vague suggestion by Mishlai

Consideration might be given to the notion that an outcome of high-level mediation might be agreement that the dispute is "officially" intractable - as agreed to by both parties in the dispute as well as the mediator.
1. The Wikipedia community may wish to explore options for presenting that outcome in the article. This would be a break from the style of traditional encyclopedias, but could reflect one of the strengths of wikipedia - community produced content. I believe it would be desireable for such cases to be rare.
2. An article could possibly be templated as having had a prolonged and intractable dispute over its content. A brief description of the nature of the dispute might be written by a 3rd party (perhaps the mediator) with each side approving the accuracy of the description of their viewpoint in the matter. I propose this tentatively, as it is not well thought through.
3. Such an outcome should, ideally, free the editors to agree to disagree and move on to other encyclopedic matters in which progress is possible.
4. Such a system should leave open the option for the community to resurrect discussion if there is no longer a consensus on intractability. (As a matter of principle, there should always be room for consensus to change - one the reasons I fundamentally disagree with the notion of a content authority.)
Another outcome would be "not resolved, but not yet deemed intractable either". In this case the dispute would continue to exist in the sense that we are all already familiar with. Mishlai ( talk) 04:51, 19 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Users who endorse this view

Vague support. ☺ Coppertwig ( talk) 23:10, 31 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Arbitrator/Mediator managed RFC/poll

We just had one in the date delinking case, which, although it had issues with management, proved useful. Content issues are the communities to solve not arb-coms, but that doesn't mean arb-com can't guide and manage a path for teh community to find consensus. I think Ryan would be a useful person to talk to regarding setting up a process through which to manage such polls and rfc's. I think he'd agree he learnt a lot regarding having an agreed end-game before launching, and also tight rules on canvassing and opening and closing. Many of these tasks can be automated, certainly the opening and closing and the canvassing. The end-game needs to be looked at more closely, but I think it is not beyond the means of arb-com to simply state that in certain binary issues a consensus can be determined by a certain %, the % variable depending on the issue, and also having a requirement for a quorom; I'd say the date delinking and the current poll at plot show that you're likely to get between 150 and 500 respondents depending upon where the issue is advertised. I think there is a viable process here which would help ease tensions: the input of arbitrators/mediators in settling what the issue is and composing a question or questions for the community, and providing solutions in the format of if x we do 1, if y we do 2, if z we do 3. I think we also need to establish better practises for teh definition of "no consensus" and what it means. I'd certainly like to see some sort of return to "open polls" on issues. This was a system where we used to leave polls open for a long time, and I think we could return to that with some sort of arb-com input. Take date-autoformatting. Even though the poll is closed, there is nothing to be lost from leaving the poll open, and reviewing it periodically to see if consensus has changed. This also would allow a funnel for frustration. If we had a list of such open polls at the bottom of cent and other areas, this would allow community memebers to have their voice heard and in a sense act as a "petition". Take for example WP:N, which is typically a cause of issue. If we had a page where people could sign their support or opposition to the very principle notability enshrines, we could quite quickly defuse a vast number of debates. We could simply point people to the appropriate section of the open poll or petition. Obviously we fall into accusations of "not a democracy", but the obvious retort is "not a battleground". This system has been used on Wikipedia before so it isn't outlandish, it formed the basis for a number of naming conventions. All we'd be doing is marrying it up to actual arbitration. Food for thought. I certainly think this is an area arb-com/mediators could become more useful, in a role akin to election observers or peacemakers. Hiding T 10:15, 19 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Proposal #11 by Askari Mark

I am in concurrence with the majority of commentators here and for most of the reasons they give for ArbCom not taking up responsibility for content disputes. It’s really much wiser to keep the venues for addressing editor behavior and content disputes separate and distinct in their purposes. I do agree with John Carter and others that having a dedicated body to work on content- and sourcing-related questions would be very beneficial; however, it may be that what is needed is to give some new procedural tools to MedCom rather than create a new organization.

As structured, MedCom is a small organization of members who are good at mediating; they are, however, too few to be even semi-expert in all areas of knowledge. (The same can also likely be said of those editors who actively watch and participate in any neutral capacity.) What I would recommend would be that a formal and explicit mechanism be crafted for the MedCom to draw on the active Wikiprojects themselves. IMO, the projects are usually the best places to resolve reliable source issues on their topic area – and once consensus is achieved to maintain it. They are likewise usually a good source for neutral, uninvolved subject-matter experts (SMEs) – and in my experience content disputes most often arise among somewhat knowledgeable but non-expert editors (and often in places where these SMEs aren’t watching); theirs would be a sort of “friend of the court” role – not as advocates or decisionmakers, but to develop a professionally informed advisory recommendation to the MedCom. However, where the content dispute is tied to an honest disagreement on interpretation of policies, guidelines and such – which are rarely completely clear as they are usually in a state of flux – then the community active on those pages need to be requested to develop a clarification.

Users who endorse this proposal

Askari Mark (Talk) 03:53, 20 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Possible proposal on behalf of User:FimusTauri

This user has made no WP contributions since 15th April, so very likely hasn't heard of this RfC, so I'm acting as proxy here on my own initiative. The user was working on a proposal, which can be found at User:FimusTauri/RfCwO. I've no idea whether the user would in fact consider it sufficiently finished to be worth proposing here. Peter jackson ( talk) 10:19, 23 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Proposal by Ashley Y

Editors, especially those with experience in content disputes, should help out in disputes about content of which they don't have a strong opinion.

No new policy or bureaucracy is needed.

Proposal #14 by Rd232

Strengthen existing Third Opinion and request for comment procedures by setting up a list of editors willing to comment (categorised by topic); and then using a bot operating on a cab rank principle to ask those people to comment on specific third opinion / RFC requests. This would increase third party involvement in disputes, increase randomness of involvement (less self-selection might mean more neutrality, on average) and help resolve smaller ones. The big ones (like political choices over place names, say) need something else.

Users who endorse this proposal

Rd232 ^talk 15:36, 24 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Avenue ( talk) 02:25, 26 May 2009 (UTC) reply
How about an automated way of seeing a view of RfCs showing how many people have commented so far on each one, so that people can comment on the ones most needing more comments. ☺ Coppertwig ( talk) 23:10, 31 May 2009 (UTC) reply

I thought of that too (finding some way to show how many people have responded, in one central list for all RfCs), but thought it would be hard to do automatically. Rd232 ^talk 08:39, 2 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Yes we need more people at WP:RFC and people who are willing to summarize the discussion. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 04:08, 25 January 2011 (UTC) reply

Views

View by John Carter

View by Durova

View by Ryan Postlethwaite

View by Jbolden1517

View by Xavexgoem

View by Nifboy

View by Jclemens

View by SilkTork

View by LessHeard vanU

View by 89.101.220.70

View by KimvdLinde

Content dispute ArbCom

view by DGG

View by Steve Crossin

View #1 by Scott Free

View #2 by Scott Free

View #3 by Scott Free

View by Mishlai

View by User:Peter jackson

Additional comment

Another additional comment

Proposals

Proposal #1 by Durova

Proposal #2 by NuclearWarfare

Proposal #3 by KimvdLinde

Proposal #4 by Ryan Postlethwaite

Proposal #5 by SilkTork

Proposal #6 by Kotniski

Proposal #7 by John Carter

Proposal #8 by User:Rootology

Vague suggestion by Mishlai

Arbitrator/Mediator managed RFC/poll

Proposal #11 by Askari Mark

Possible proposal on behalf of User:FimusTauri

Proposal by Ashley Y

Proposal #14 by Rd232

Views

View by John Carter

View by Durova

View by Ryan Postlethwaite

View by Jbolden1517

View by Xavexgoem

View by Nifboy

View by Jclemens

View by SilkTork

View by LessHeard vanU

View by 89.101.220.70

View by KimvdLinde

Content dispute ArbCom

view by DGG

View by Steve Crossin

View #1 by Scott Free

View #2 by Scott Free

View #3 by Scott Free

View by Mishlai

View by User:Peter jackson

Additional comment

Another additional comment

Proposals

Proposal #1 by Durova

Proposal #2 by NuclearWarfare

Proposal #3 by KimvdLinde

Proposal #4 by Ryan Postlethwaite

Proposal #5 by SilkTork

Proposal #6 by Kotniski

Proposal #7 by John Carter

Proposal #8 by User:Rootology

Vague suggestion by Mishlai

Arbitrator/Mediator managed RFC/poll

Proposal #11 by Askari Mark

Possible proposal on behalf of User:FimusTauri

Proposal by Ashley Y

Proposal #14 by Rd232

Videos

Websites

Encyclopedia

Facebook