Wikipedia:Dispute resolution/2017 RfC

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The purpose of this RfC is to address some issues with Wikipedia's dispute resolution system. In particular, this RfC focuses on the lack of substantive venues for conduct disputes. ANI and ArbCom (the only two venues available now) are notoriously confrontational and, typically, are mostly concerned with sanctioning individuals over addressing the core, underlying substance of the dispute. This RfC also contains proposals regarding MedCom, and proposals aimed at increasing the flexibility of some DR venues. 15:13, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

@RFC participants--A part of the RFC is running.Please opine at this section and/or participate in the discussion at this thread.Thanks!Winged Blades ^Godric 12:38, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

A1: Mark MedCom as historical

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Snow opposed.There are considerable problems as to the accuracy of the proposal-statement.See this section for more details.Winged Blades ^Godric 12:13, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

---

MedCom has mediated only one case in the past year—that mediation failed, in any case. Furthermore, MedCom technically has no chairperson. The term of the last chairperson ended in August 2016, and in violation of its policy, MedCom has failed to elect a new chairperson.

Thus, it is proposed that MedCom be marked as historical.

Support A1

1. Support. Seeing that MedCom has dealt with only one (failed) case in the past year, and seeing that the term of its last chair ended about a year ago, I think it's safe to say that MedCom is inactive and thus historical. Biblio (talk) 15:44, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
2. Support per Biblio. No reason to keep it running without a chairman. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 16:22, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Oppose A1

1. Oppose: I'm the current Chairperson of MEDCOM, which is not inactive. Indeed, we have considered somewhere around 46 cases (more or less, that was a quick count) in the last 12 months. It is true that all but one were rejected, but that reflects the current nature of Medcom to only take the most difficult cases. We stand ready to do that, but most cases which come to us either are not suitable or fail due to lack of sufficient acceptance by the disputants. DRN has substantially cut down on the number of easily-resolved disputes which would have previously come to Medcom, but DRN is a limited forum in that it was expressly created and designed to limit cases to about two weeks and allows editors inexperienced in DR to volunteer, whereas cases at Medcom have no time limits and only experienced mediators are members. While Medcom now serves a limited niche due to DRN it is, especially for complex cases, still an important resource to have. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:42, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Sidebar comments

1. Oppose - As per TransporterMan. As a volunteer at WP:DRN, the option to refer a case to MedCom is still a valuable tool. Most requests to MedCom are declined, but one reason is that many requests to MedCom, like many requests to DRN, are malformed in some way. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:47, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
2. Oppose - As per TransporterMan. No reason to mark as historical, although perhaps some revision in how MEDCOM works might be useful. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 19:41, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
3. Oppose. I agree with the comments above, and I think that mediation provides a genuinely useful service. In fact, even when case requests are rejected, the reasons given for declining are sometimes effective in focusing the thoughts of the disputants, and failed mediations (I've been on one) nonetheless also move disputes closer to consensus, even if not all the way there. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:53, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
4. Oppose: for all the reasons above. TransporterMan is indeed the chairperson, and mails to the mailing list are answered promptly. That all cases so far this year have been declined is not to be confused with defunct. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:12, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
5. Oppose as per TransporterMan, who has been doing good work as chair. I am also available to respond to mediation requests and other MedCom related issues as needed. It's unfortunate that so many editors refuse to participate in mediation and other forms of dispute resolution, but that is their right. —Guanaco 21:53, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
6. Oppose, and I think this proposal is malformed and inappropriate, as it's demonstrably inaccurate. Joefromrandb (talk) 21:58, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
7. Oppose because it is based on the false assertion that MedCom is no longer active. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 03:01, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
8. Oppose To state that there is no chairperson and the chairperson then turns up. Oops. ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 06:36, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A2: Conditional MedCom replacement

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Snow opposed.A casualty of the adverse closure of 1st proposal.See this section for more details.Winged Blades ^Godric 12:27, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

---

Replace MedCom with a new body of experienced mediators, who could be resorted to in the event of an unsuccessful DRN case. Admission as a member of this new body would be more straightforward than admission to MedCom—qualification for membership would be based solely on your previous, objective record as a mediator. Any editor who has successfully mediated five DRN cases would be were automatically eligible for membership.

If Proposal A1 is unsuccessful, this proposal is irrelevant regardless of its outcome. If both Proposal A1 and this proposal succeed, the details of this new body would be discussed in a separate RfC.

Support A2

1. Support. There should still be a mediation venue of last resort. However, MedCom is too bureaucratic, and is inactive in any case. If editors want an experienced mediator, qualification as such should be based solely on your objective record of successfully mediating disputes. Biblio (talk) 15:44, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

You say, "qualification for membership would be based solely on your previous, objective record as a mediator" but is the 5-successful-DRN-cases the sole path to that? If not, how and who would determine it? And define "successful". That's not a throw-away comment: Let's say a DRN case is filed, all the parties accept, and after two or three rounds of back and forth comments the primary disputant on one side says, "Wikipedia is BS, everything is fake, and I'm leaving" and does so, ending the dispute; was that a "success"? And let me point out that the pool of possible mediators might be much smaller than you might think. At any given time there are usually only 2-3 active volunteers at DRN and, depending on how you define "successful," the number of those who might qualify is much smaller than you might think, especially with a number of successes as high as 5. How DRN volunteers conduct and manage cases is far more important than the number which are successfully resolved because most cases fail through no fault of the volunteer, but to evaluate that some kind of membership process is needed, such as Medcom already has. Finally, Medcom is too bureaucratic in what way? And how is that inappropriate for a mediation venue of last resort? Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:00, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Oppose A2

1. I do not see how this would be an improvement on the existing MEDCOM. More detail on how it might work would be needed. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 19:42, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
2. Oppose. This proposal would need a lot more fleshing out to be useful. (I think that we would need to really see the, um, "replace", before we consider the "repeal".) However, I think that it might be useful to strengthen the pathway from DRN to MEDCOM, perhaps by having a more organized way to send DRN cases to mediation, beyond just recommending MEDCOM. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:57, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
3. Oppose. I think the claims that MedCom is inactive and too bureaucratic are subjective.The current system is here when it's needed and works when it's needed. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:17, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
4. Oppose. The Mediation Committee is open to accepting new members, and I would invite successful DRN mediators to submit a nomination. —Guanaco 21:54, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
5. Oppose because it is based on the false assertion that MedCom is no longer active. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 03:02, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
6. Oppose, as this proposal falsely presupposes the since-debunked first proposal to be accurate. Joefromrandb (talk) 18:22, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Neutral A2

1. Neutral. We still have MedCom. Any additional mediation fora besides MedCom and DRN would be useful. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:50, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

B: Third opinion and conduct disputes

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Snow opposed.The opinions by TransporterMan deserve special mention.Some discussants are partially(??) amenable to the introduction of a new process for resolving user-disputes; subject to certain conditions.See this section for more details.Winged Blades ^Godric 12:21, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

---

Create a "Conduct disputes" section on Wikipedia:Third opinion. Of course, no volunteer would be under obligation to address such disputes if they did not wish to do so. But currently, there are not any non-confrontational DR venues for conduct disputes. If 3O was allowed to address such disputes, editors could ask a fresh set of eyes to (1) examine the dispute, and (2) remind the disputing editors of the applicable policies/guidelines and what they require. As before, only two-editor disputes would be considered.

Support B

1. Support. It would do no harm. As before, 3O volunteers could freely choose whether they will address a case. If they do not wish to wade in to a certain conduct dispute, they are under no obligation to do so. However, we might prevent some bitter ANI cases of we opened up a new, non-sanctioning venue for addressing two-person conduct disputes. Biblio (talk) 15:44, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Oppose B

1. Oppose. This has been, in the past, considered and rejected by the 3O volunteer community. It is an invitation to, in effect, restore Wikiquette assistance which did much the same thing as was proposed here and which devolved into a horrible dramaboard which, as often as not, either inflamed conduct disputes or drew the volunteer into the dispute. Having said that, I do think that it might be done as a separate process from the current 3O, but only if it is made very clear that 3O doesn't deal with conduct and the new process doesn't deal with content and volunteers who give conduct opinions are limited to giving an opinion and walking away without editing further in relation to that dispute. Since conduct disputes generally involve a lot of stubbornness, I'm not at all sure how much good a walk-away opinion will have. Moreover, 3O attracts (as it should) a lot of inexperienced volunteers; given the heat generated in conduct disputes, I'm not at all sure newcomers are up to the task in conduct disputes. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:59, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
2. Oppose as per TransporterMan. Allowing conduct disputes to be brought to 3O or to any content forum would generate heat without resolving anything. It would make the job of the volunteers harder, because, at present, a volunteer can drop an issue that has conduct aspects like a hot potato, which in turn provides a reason for editors to keep the dispute focused on content. Everyone benefits from keeping the content disputes clean of conduct. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:55, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
3. Oppose. Because 3O rests upon the judgment of just one individual, it should be kept as informal as possible. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:59, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
4. Oppose for the reasons stated above by TransporterMan. I don't see the need to change the status quo and I don't see the need to start a new system that replaces WQA. A plethora of noticeboards is just confusing. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:39, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
5. Oppose as per TransporterMan. I would be open to considering amending the mediation policy to, at MedCom's discretion, accept conduct issues on a limited basis. How and when this might apply would need to be discussed thoroughly, to avoid hampering the committee's ability to mediate content issues. —Guanaco 22:07, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
6. Oppose. I find TransporterMan's reasoning convincing. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 03:04, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Neutral B

1. Neutral. I've given a few third opinions before and I've noticed that practically every dispute has become conduct focused before I got there. This usually happens after the first few (usually two) posts from both participants who have stated their differing opinions on how something should be done. Allowing users to directly list their conduct disputes will likely mean that the content aspect where the conduct dispute was derived will be located elsewhere on the talk page from the conduct dispute. This will increase volunteer workload because it will take longer to get to the heart of the matter. This sounds like I am opposing, but I am neutral because I don't believe Third Opinion is effective anyway. One participant practically always agrees with the volunteer, while the other participant practically always disagrees with the volunteer (or even ignores it). The end result is another dispute resolution method being used to settle the dispute. I don't include the obligatory paragraph about how my third opinion is informal and not binding any more because it increases the chance of my recommendations being completely disregarded by one of the participants. The alternative of course is that I am wrong in every third opinion I give, which naturally would result in my recommendations being disregarded and rightly so. Let's hope for my sake that, that isn't true! -=Troop=- (talk) 10:18, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

I disagree with the idea that Third Opinion is ineffective. Indeed, my opinion is just the opposite: That Third Opinion is probably the most effective DR venue that we have. I've lost track of how many 3O's I've given, but I think that it's probably well over 200. When I first began, I kept track for the first 120 opinions or so and slightly over 70% of the disputes resolved, one way or another, immediately after I gave the 3O. Some ended by agreement with my opinion, some ended by simply ceasing, some ended with one of the disputants leaving Wikipedia, some in other ways. (Since many of those disputes had come to stalemate already, I don't doubt that some goodly number of them would have ended anyway even without a 3O, much less my 3O, but I'd like to think that the 3O's at least helped to give the coup d'grace.) I think, but do not know for sure, that the experience of most other high-volume 3O volunteers is similar. I doubt that your opinions are wrong, but with just a few cases you may have just had the (bad) luck of the draw. Keep up the good work (but don't omit the header, it emphasizes your neutrality and — though we cannot claim any authority — helps to give your opinion gravitas). Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:43, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

C: Partially alter non-binding nature of 3O/DRN

Allow settlements reached via 3O or the DRN to be binding on the parties, if, and only if, the parties agree that the compromise will be binding. If (in the case of DRN cases with multiple parties) some parties agree to be bound and others do not, the settlement will be binding only among those editors who consented, assuming, of course, that the case is successfully resolved. The volunteer responding to, or mediating, a case should ask the parties if they wish any resultant settlements to be binding.

Support C

1. Support. If the parties actually want their agreement to be binding between/among themselves, why shouldn't it be? The earlier we allow a case to be definitively resolved, the better. Biblio (talk) 15:44, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Oppose C

1. Oppose The nature of 3O means it is open to some very poor interpretation of the arguments, often because those offering a third opinion are not familiar with the subject matter and take the statements made by each of the disputing parties at face value when sometimes one side can be attempting to mislead other editors. It would be infuriating and disheartening for the honest editor to see the 3O closer side with the party at fault in cases like this and I don't think it would be positive for Wikipedia. Number 57 18:09, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
2. A single editor should not be making "binding" decisions on either conduct or content issues. Nor should the two be part of the same forum. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 19:45, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
3. Oppose asking a single editor at 3O to make a "binding" decision is very problematic. Power~enwiki (talk) 20:00, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
4. Oppose, strongly. Again, we should not mandate the enforcement of a single individual's recommendations. But there is nothing wrong with parties agreeing to a binding outcome if they do so voluntarily. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:02, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
5. Oppose, obviously. Joefromrandb (talk) 21:50, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
6. Oppose. The O part of 3O is its essence - it is simply asking for an opinion. And no individual should have the power to make binding decisions (even with the consent of involved parties). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 03:08, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Neutral C

1. Neutral. Let me point out that there's nothing preventing this from being done right now. And, indeed, I have while working at DRN actually done it once. The question is this: What happens if someone agrees that it's binding and then ignores their agreement when the decision doesn't go their way. That very thing happened in the case where I used it and the violator was eventually blocked indefinitely for disruption, with his/her violation of the agreement being one item of evidence — among many others — of disruption. The dilemma is this: If you create a penalty such as a topic ban for violating such an agreement, such a proposal will almost certainly be lumped in with the many attempts at creating content arbitration that have occurred and failed over the years as being in violation of the principle that no one at WP has the right to make decisions about content; if you do not create such a penalty, then there is a very good chance that an editor who is at least reasonably circumspect can simply violate the agreement. And in either case, it opens up the possibility of the losing editor attacking the decision for being made on unsound grounds, not being sufficiently informed of what he/she was agreeing to, and on and on. I do think it can work, but is such a niche process that it's hardly worth bothering with. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:25, 23 July 2017 (UTC) PS: FWIW, here's a draft I've been dulsitorially working on for a Content Arbitration by Agreement Noticeboard. It's been dulsitory because I don't think that it will be accepted by the community and also because it is necessarily complicated in order to make it work right. — TransporterMan (TALK) 17:26, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

D: Interpretation Committee

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Snow opposed.See this section for more details.Winged Blades ^Godric 12:09, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

---

One major purpose of this RfC is to address the dearth of DR venues for conduct disputes. The only two venues as of now are ANI and ArbCom. Both of these venues are exceptionally confrontational, and often directly result in sanctions. Therefore, it is proposed that an Interpretation Committee (IC) be formed.

1. The IC would comprise seven (7) members. To prevent conflicts of interest, no member of the IC could simultaneously serve on ArbCom, or on any other policy-established committee.
2. The IC members would be elected on an annual basis by a simple approval vote. The top seven finishers would become members of the IC. If there are fewer than seven candidates, any unfilled seats would remain vacant until the next election.
3. Editors could bring disputes of any sort—content or conduct—before the IC. As with ArbCom, at least some prior discussion between the parties would be required, and IC would be entitled to accept or decline a case.
4. If it agreed to consider a case, the IC would determine the merits of each party's argument, in light of the applicable Wikipedia policies and guidelines. When deciding the case, it would also issue directives as to what the parties must do in order to comply with said policies and guidelines.
5. The IC's directives would have binding force. However, the IC would not have the power to impose sanctions on the parties. In all cases, the IC would initially assume that its directives will be complied with. This would be the unique and distinguishing feature of the IC—it would have a purely declaratory function. It would address the core substance of the issue, instead of just sanctioning individuals. It would thus be less confrontational. Sanctions could be imposed only if a party violated the IC's directive after the fact. Alleged violations would be referred to Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents for examination and possible sanction.
6. Where necessary, the IC would clarify the meaning of ambiguous policies and guidelines. These interpretations would not merely serve an ad hoc function, but would be authoritative precedent.
7. Decisions of the IC could be appealed to ArbCom. However, the appealing party would have to explain, using policies and guidelines, the errors in the IC's determination. And of course, ArbCom could always decline an appeal at its own discretion.

Support D

1. Support. Editors need a way to resolve the underlying, substantive issues in disputes, without always having to fear sanctions just for seeking clarification. Biblio (talk) 15:44, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Oppose D

1. Oppose. I'm very leery about potentially placing the power to decide Wikipedia content in the hands of just four editors (four is the majority in a vote of seven committee members), especially if (and correct me if I'm reading this improperly) decisions of the committee cannot be overturned by community consensus in, say, an RfC (decisions have "binding force" and the last point says they are appealable to ArbCom—is that only to ArbCom?). I'm afraid such a committee would have the unintended consequence of becoming the de facto "editorial board" of Wikipedia.
   This RfC was purportedly drafted to improve the conduct dispute resolution system (I agree that the current ANI then ArbCom system could be improved), but I'm afraid this particular proposal has gone too far in meddling with content dispute resolution, which is a separate, though of course fundamentally related process. We already have various methods of structured dispute resolution for content that revolve around editor consensus as the driving force for decision-making: RfCs provide a straw-poll to help gauge consensus, and mediation at DRN and MedCom are structured to help a smaller group of editors find compromise.
   I get that it is frustrating when editors can't find compromise on an issue, but that should be the goal of any reform, I think: to find better methods of getting people to work together. Establishing a committee to decide content for us goes against Wikipedia's fundamental principles as a collaborative project, and it's something I'm extremely hesitant about supporting at this time. Mz7 (talk) 17:25, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
2. Oppose Whilst I agree that we need another way to deal with conduct, particularly around editors who do not break any fundamental rules like 3RR but are clearly on Wikipedia to promote a certain agenda (we have never been able to properly deal with these editors, meaning many have stuck around foe many years), I do not think this is the way to go about it. Number 57 18:15, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
3. I strongly oppose mixing content and conduct disputes in the same forum. I oppose so limited in number a group making binding decisions. I do not see the point of a conduct decision with now power to sanction users. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs}
4. Oppose, strongly. It's bureaucracy creep, and a bad mix. It would be just a matter of time before we would have an RfC about drastically changing this. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:04, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
5. Oppose, strongly (though I kinda like the name InterCom). No content dispute or meaning of policy should ever be decided by authority, only by consensus discussion of anyone who wishes to take part - the Wikipedia egalitarian ideal is flawed in practice, but this would kill it by policy. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:14, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
6. Oppose - I see that the above rationale speaks of an additional mechanism without sanctions. We don't need additional mechanisms without sanctions, except for content disputes. I submit that what we need is an additional mechanism WITH sanctions that is less formal than ArbCom and less fractious than WP:ANI, that could impose topic-bans or blocks. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:55, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
7. Oppose - This would not differ from ArbCom much. Even if it initially is not as "scary" as ArbCom, it will eventually become so. Also, it would be a bit too much bureaucracy, something WIkipedia does not need more of. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 01:01, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
8. Oppose It always seems that the only way to 'fix' these 'problems' is to add another authority with more formal powers, which is not necessary. We do things the messy way, even if that also has problems itself. In short: no thank you. ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 06:34, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
9. Oppose Arbcom demonstrates quite nicely how intelligent, eloquent, circumspect individuals can collectively become a foolish embarrassment. This proposal seems to more or less call for "Arbcom 2". No thanks. Joefromrandb (talk) 18:27, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Threaded discussion

• I don't really understand why any of this is necessary. The reason that ANI is the main forum for "conduct disputes" (although it's not totally clear where the delineations of that exactly are) is:

1. Issues of "conduct" often require sanctions to resolve, thus administrator tools to impose or enact, thus an "Administrator noticeboard".
2. Many of these are community sanctions, which require active input and discussion, thus centralization on one of the most watched pages on the project.

It's not totally clear that MedCom didn't fade away because of the usefulness of the format, which as far as I can tell is very much "let's make-believe ArbCom", meaning that the format is cumbersome and time consuming, not terribly conducive to complex problems and nuanced discussion, opaque to the point of being often indecipherable to probably most new users, and many experienced ones, and basically the opposite of WP:NOTBURO. It's not totally clear that there's any reason to think replacing this with another cumbersome time consuming bureaucratic pseudo-appellate-court is going to fix any of that.

Part of the reason ANI is often toxic, is because "conduct disputes" often arise from toxic attitudes and toxic behavior, which is the reason for the report in the first place. Tempering and changing that is an issue of community values and norms, and you can't "regulate" that away. Instead you have to address it by addressing community values an norms, for instance, like the overall greater tolerance for incivility and personal attacks on ANI arising apparently from some implicit assumption that it's "part of the process" of resolving the dispute. TimothyJosephWood 16:16, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

• Why are all the options so institutional? The vast majority of editor disagreements in content (not behavior) can be resolved with an outside opinion—we don't need endless bureaucracy, panels, and chairpeople to mediate. Any third party can serve as an ombudsperson and all involved parties should be able to agree to amicable conditions. Sanctions are only needed in extreme cases after routine dispute resolution fails, and the larger, community-based venues for those discussions are already in smooth operation. If WikiProject pages worked more like the content-related noticeboards they're supposed to be, there would be far more lower-level conflict resolution before it percolates up the ladder.  czar 17:37, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) I don't like any of these proposals, and I think Timothyjosephwood hits the nail on the head when he points out that the acrimony of a dispute at ANI is fundamentally caused by the acrimonious nature of the dispute itself. The "free-for-all" structure of ANI sometimes makes that acrimony worse, and that's why arbitration is an option to provide more structure to the dispute resolution in a process of evidence-gathering and workshopping a decision. That being said, I think an intermediary step between ANI and ArbCom could be worth trying – a more structured process that involves the community rather than a committee – but I realize it's already been tried before: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct. Mz7 (talk) 17:38, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

I will comment as to RFC/U, since I think that I was the editor who originally proposed successfully that it be deactivated. As it was defined, it was a very formal rigid procedure, requiring two editors to certify the dispute within 24 hours. Because of its rigidity, there were frequent disputes over whether an RFC/U had even been properly filed. It had preceded the existence of ArbCom; its original purpose was to forward a complaint to User:Jimbo Wales as a request to ban the user. At the same time, there were efforts made to have it be a "kinder, gentler" procedure for suggesting that editors should become more collaborative or more reasonable, and it tried to conflate being constructive and being destructive. It may be appropriate to revive some sort of RFC on a user, but only if it really is agreed to be punitive, not if it combines punitive and constructive aspects. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:01, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

• I don't want to offer these as proposals, because they're both fraught with problems and any solution will have to have the Devil in the numerous details which would be necessary to make them work. But the two things which could be done to most help content dispute resolution, and the encyclopedia, would be, first, to make unjustified failure to discuss a content dispute a sanctionable action. (It may, kinda, be already, see DISCFAIL, but there are a lot of hoops to jump through there, I'm talking about something much more simple.) Second, and more important, make participation in content dispute resolution at DRN and Medcom mandatory. By that I do not mean that an editor should be forced to come to consensus, but an editor should be forced to at least make a good faith effort to do so and should be topic banned until s/he does so. Good faith effort in that case would generally consist of showing up, at least minimally participating, and responding to questions posed by the mediator, though that definition would need a good bit of refinement. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:20, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
• I don't particularly like any of these proposals, though I agree with the sentiment that some change is necessary. I don't know whether that's increased use of WikiProjects, or a new noticeboard (perhaps WP:AN/Conduct disputes), or a new charter for MEDCOM, or something else. Power~enwiki (talk) 20:03, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
• Like editors above, I see these proposals as solutions in search of problems, and I don't like any of them. I am sympathetic to the argument that ANI has become too confrontational. Perhaps the community should just establish whether there is a consensus for administrators to be more assertive about telling the worst combatants to just shut up, or some admins could just start doing that on their own. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:07, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
• By the time I had read down to here I found that the general response is already what I was going to say: all these suggestions are solutions in search of a problem. I don't quite recognise what particular instances have brought these suggestions about other than the erroneous beliefs that MedCom is defunct and doesn't have a chair. And again concurring with Tryptofish, I recently referred to ANI for the second time this year as a 'cesspit', which does not mean however that we need to be looking for something new or additional. If people are going to be rude and attack each other, they will do it anywhere. What we should be doing is looking at ways to modernise ANI - and without losing sight of the fact that it is supposed to be an adminstrators' board while still not forgetting that not every case brought before it needs to be resolved with sanctions. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:55, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

A Few Off-the-Wall Thoughts

I have a few thoughts. It is important to continue to maintain the distinction between content issues and conduct issues. Although many disputes have both content aspects and conduct aspects, if content issues can be addressed successfully, conduct issues often become less troublesome. Also, keeping content issues and conduct issues separate makes it easier to try to resolve the content issues.

The English Wikipedia is very large, diverse, and fractious. It appears to be self-governing, but is effectively anarchic. The WMF is part of the problem because the WMF doesn’t want to be part of the solution and continues to delude itself into thinking that the English Wikipedia is able to govern itself. One or two years ago, User:Jimbo Wales suggested that the WMF might be able to provide a few professionally trained mediators as a resource. To the best of my knowledge, no one opposed the idea (and there cannot be any reasonable opposition to the idea), but nothing came of it. As many of us volunteers know, the WMF appears to be interested only in raising money, and we don’t have much of a clue what happens to it. Professional mediators for certain disputes to supplement volunteer mediation would be an excellent idea (and perhaps for that reason is too useful to be followed up by the WMF).

Some mid-level mechanism for dealing with disruptive editors between individual administrators at the low level and the ArbCom and “the community” at WP:ANI would be useful. I have in the past suggested randomly selected panels of two administrators and a non-administrator, providing summary justice, with appeal to the ArbCom; but any intermediate mechanism would help. Some sort of relief for the ArbCom from its backlog of stupid tasks would be helpful. (The WMF could provide resources, but that might actually help.) Robert McClenon (talk) 21:49, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

No offense, Robert, but isn't the statement about WMF being "interested only in raising money"... a generalization, too much, or something? What else is so wrong about WMF, and why should WMF be depicted as such? --George Ho (talk) 22:16, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Is the statement "a generalization, too much, or something?" Yes. Something. I was about to direct you to the charts of User:Guy Macon on the exponential growth of WMF's finances, with no visible benefit to us English Wikipedia volunteers, but I see that you, User:George Ho, have already taken part in those discussions, so obviously you disagree with my conclusions. What I think is wrong with the WMF is that they appear to be complacently satisfied with the state of the English Wikipedia, their largest project, because it has impressive big numbers, and that they do nothing about its chaotic workings, but that is a matter of opinion, and they think that we have working processes to resolve conflicts, and so they don't need to help us. Do you have a different opinion? Robert McClenon (talk) 22:43, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

The WMF has the Community Engagement team, including Support, Safety and Programs subtask, just in case. Also, there is meta:Requests for comment. Other than that, I have no opinions about WMF and/or its finances, but they had the Funds Dissemination Committee elections last month.

I know that WMF had its faults about... the Board of Trustees mess in 2015–16 and... the Knowledge Engine disaster. Even I read the list of Wikipedia controversies. But I can't personally hate or dislike the WMF for those events. I still have... well, some little more faith in the WMF.

Personally, if WMF intervenes in disputes a lot, English Wikipedia's self-governance would be conflicted. I don't know whether that's a good or bad thing. However, intervention in the Croatian Wikipedia (hr.wp) may illustrate that WMF's intervention reflected a lack of sufficient dispute resolution venues and hr.wp's absence of ArbCom. Nevertheless, hr.wp has been a small-community Wikipedia site, so that explains a lack of ArbCom there.

A little off-topic, I hope that some other non-English Wikipedia sites that have active their own ArbCom processes are okay and adequately more self-governed than anarchic, right? --George Ho (talk) 23:07, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

User:George Ho - I didn't mean that the WMF should resolve specific disputes in the English Wikipedia. I did suggest and mean that the WMF should facilitate the establishment of a mid-level conduct dispute resolution process on the English Wikipedia. I did mean and suggest that the WMF could facilitate the use of its tools for discussion of policy and governance issues on the English Wikipedia. I don't personally hate or dislike the WMF either. But why do you have faith in them when they have shown that all they want to do is raise money, and to spend it on things like the Knowledge Engine or Visual Editor or whatever? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:17, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for clarity, Robert. About "facilitat[ing] the use of its tools for discussion of policy and governance issues on [en.wp]", would that be too much bureaucracy, especially for good-hearted editors? Why not ask for clarifications of existing rules addressing conduct? I have done so recently.

About "facilitat[ing] the establishment of a mid-level conduct dispute resolution process"... Having a few professional mediators seems nice and all. However, would it contradict WMF's values, like "freedom" and "independence"? (Note that ArbCom was created in 2004 before "Values" was created in 2007 and officiated in 2008) What if a WMF-hired mediator has a conflict of interest, contrary to WMF's own COI policy (and WP:COI guideline), despite being self-declared neutral, and is involved in user conduct disputes? Of course, a mediator can recuse, but what if all mediators recuse? Would the proposed WMF-established process be effective, or would it make the same mistakes as RFC/U had done until its 2014 shutdown?

I know that the encyclopedia project is... dysfunctional and all that. However, I figure that communities can resolve user disputes without needing any more venues, right? The WMF trusts us to govern ourselves, collaborate together, and resolve our own user conducts. If WMF intervenes and creates an establishment, that would indicate en.wp community's failures to resolve its own user disputes without WMF intervention, wouldn't it? Users can resolve their own conducts without escalating further, right? For the record, I tried WP:discussion review, but that.... failed. I don't want to discuss it. Really.

About my faith in WMF... I know that WMF, owing its own success or resulted from the success of Wikipedia, has its past mistakes. However, I believe the WMF has good in itself (maybe also?). There are also good people in WMF. It can grow and expand globally as intended, can't it? I don't believe that WMF intends to control user behavior, does it? Well, WMF can globally ban any editor... just not many Wikipedians. I figure people would see my faith in WMF as naïve thinking or just ignorance. This year, it created inter-wiki search results from sister projects, though opt-out option is given to English Wikipedia via user preferences. Also, Doc James is re-elected this year, though not yet set in stone until this year's Wikimania. About mistakes, has reforming WMF been considered, though it's off-topic? --George Ho (talk) 05:00, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

– Also, I somewhat disagree with the assertion that addressing content disputes would reduce conduct issues. I might lean toward agreeing with you about separating content and conduct issues from each other. However, even when content disputes are resolved, e.g. consensus, a user might poorly behave as or worse than before. That's hypothetical, nevertheless. --George Ho (talk) 07:15, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

I have previously discussed the value that professional mediation could bring: someone who would be dedicated, day in and day out, to smoothing over disputes and getting parties to work together towards a solution. The few comments made, though, showed an antipathy to having someone paid in this role. Having paid staff members, in addition to ensuring someone is always available, would provide an easy review mechanism to validate their skills. If they aren't doing well, then let them go and get someone else.

Due to the problems with relying on consensus in an environment like Wikipedia, at one point Wikipedia's editing community will change, one way or another (perhaps paid editors will overrun it, everyone will be required to provide an email address, new editors will need to be recommended, everyone leaves and Wikipedia returns to a small community who all know each other, or something else), binding content mediation will be put in place, or both. There are a lot of potential pitfalls with the community relinquishing control of content to a smaller group, such as an echo chamber effect. But the way disputes currently linger on forever because they can never be definitively put to rest is a huge issue with trying to keep a community together. isaacl (talk) 18:24, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Revive WP:MEDCAB

There used to be another alternative to MEDCOM for mediation that didn't follow the rules. Andrevan@ 20:00, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

I've pondered for some time whether or not it might be useful to revive Medcab, but each time I've spent much time thinking about it I've come to the conclusion that DRN has largely filled the space that Medcab (and Content noticeboard) used to fill and that it might spread the already-thin pool of DR volunteers even thinner. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:13, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

I liked MEDCAB, perhaps change it to MED-RfC, where its only task and expertise is to get the (those willing, since COM is more restrictive in requiring consent) involved heads together to create really awesome policy addressing, RS source supporting, RfC's to resolve disputes. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:56, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Watchlist notice

I posted at MediaWiki talk:Watchlist-details concerning the watchlist notice for this RfC. It has been removed pending discussion, so input is welcome there. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:09, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Closures

@Biblioworm: and @ All the participants:-I have closed all the proposals as Snow Opposed except Proposal C.For any concerns address me at my talk page.Winged Blades ^Godric at 12:30, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.