User talk:Gatoclass/CTDN

Please add comments or suggestions here. Thanks, Gatoclass (talk) 08:18, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree that there is a disproportionate volume of discussion and bureaucracy to wade through in the average AE request. This is a sound proposal, but I do wonder if it will help very much. I'd happily participate in it, though. You ought to get some more input, Gatoclass. AGK [&bull; ] 14:45, 12 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I'm not sure it would work either, but I think we need to try something new, because I think it's become quite clear that AE has not been nearly as successful as we hoped it would be. Gatoclass (talk) 19:54, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

This seems like Arbcom-Lite. Not sure if we should make annother Committee on Wikipedia Bureaucracy. The risk proposition (If the plaintif looses the case) means that people are unlikeley to use this route unless they are sure they have a slam dunk case (which sould be handled at the main venue for such DR) and keep the overflow off the main DR sites. People are disinclined to submit evidence if they could be tied to a loosing side of a debate. Hasteur (talk) 15:54, 12 May 2011 (UTC)


 * That provision is there as a result of experience at AE. There are a lot of frivolous cases brought, and they chew up a lot of the community's time. Also, a process like this could get quickly overwhelmed if not for a risk element, as there are obviously a lot of content disputes going on at any one time. The risk element ensures that users will only resort to the process where they are sure they have a good case. Also, I anticipate that just the existence of this board will encourage better behaviour and discourage users from edit warring, since both plaintiff and potential defendant will have to try and view their edits objectively and ask themselves whether they are really defensible. BTW, "Arbcom Lite" is very much part of the idea behind this - reducing the burden on other, more ponderous DR processes and giving both users and admins a relatively quick and easy alternative process. Gatoclass (talk) 20:05, 12 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The creation of small editorial boards might be reasonable, but with one important correction. That should be experts and not administrators who decide something about content rather than about behavior of others. The experts should be chosen based on formal criteria (unlike selection of admins), such as simply having a degree recognized by US/European Universities. If there are not enough people with degrees, we could ask people who created or significantly extended more than N articles in certain area. Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 20:51, 12 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the suggestion, but that's not how things are done here, that's the Citizendium paradigm :) Gatoclass (talk) 23:05, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I can see your basic "assumption that most administrators have enough experience to be able to make reasonably reliable decisions about basic matters, such as whether a source conforms to WP:V or an argument is based on original research.". Unfortunately, this may be rather difficult in the area of "pseudoscience". And even in the area of History, I can easily imagine an administrator (may be even you?) who would consider this well known book an OK source. There were many nontrivial debates about sources at WP:RS. Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 01:05, 13 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Well in cases where there's a reasonable doubt about whether sources are reliable or not (I won't comment on the source you cite since I haven't thoroughly checked it) it would probably be somewhat hazardous resorting to this process. However, there is no question that some sources which get used in contentious topic areas clearly don't make the grade, and this process would provide a straightforward method of dealing with those. Gatoclass (talk) 10:00, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I can agree that we do not need experts who know a lot of detail, but we need people who at least understand basic concepts. For example, someone who comments on Time must know about definition of time in Physics, someone who comments about human races must have an idea about biological populations, someone who comments about pseudoscience must know the difference between actual pseudoscience like Lysenkoism and simply "non-science" (like religion or certain empirical practices), and someone who comments about Soviet history must be aware of propaganda and disinformation sources. Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 12:13, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

What problem does this seek to fix?
That's basically all I want to know. There seem to be any number of noticeboards that deal with these particular kinds of disputes. Your proposal, in my opinion, would end up being plagued by the same kinds of problems endemic at AE. Archaeo (talk) 18:54, 13 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, you may be right. However, this proposal was developed precisely out of my long experience of observing AE and its shortcomings. Maybe I should take the time to list those shortcomings somewhere, since you asked, but one of the main ones in my opinion is that AE mostly treats symptoms (edit warring, incivility) instead of the disease (inappropriate editing). Basically, virtually all disputes begin as content disputes, but because there is currently no effective method of resolving such disputes, they tend to drag on for weeks and months, with everyone getting increasingly angry and frustrated, until it all ends up at AE where the underlying issues are obfuscated by a mountain of mudslinging and admins hand out blocks and bans for technical breaches of rules like 1RR and incivility. Meanwhile, there has been no resolution of the underlying content dispute, so it's just waiting to be revived again.


 * What this process is aimed at is giving users an alternative to edit warring, resorting to ineffective processes like 3O/RFC/mediation, or losing their temper. Under this process, users can immediately challenge an edit they think is unreasonable and have it adjudicated by a couple of uninvolved admins. There is no longer a need for edit warring because one or the other user gets topic banned for a period of time, allowing the other editor to work on the article without disruption. There is no prospect of facing a barrage of mudslinging, which is what almost invariably occurs at AE. Also, because there is a set series of escalating sanctions, users know exactly what they are risking prior to opening a case, so they don't have to worry about copping an excessive sanction. Gatoclass (talk) 23:54, 13 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Mediation is not ineffective, but rather completely unsuited to user conduct grievances. The problem with processes like mediation and 3O are that they are all carrot and no stick, and so one disruptive editor can quickly derail mediation (and related) proceedings. In topic areas like I/P, AA, and Psuedoscience, there is typically not one but countless disruptive editors. (I feel obligated, as a long-time mediator, to defend mediation here.) On an unrelated note, what is CTDN an initialism or abbreviation of? AGK  [&bull; ] 20:14, 14 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I've never seen a mediation that worked, but since you obviously have more experience of it, I'll take your word for it that it's effective for some things. "CTDN" is meant to be an acronym for "Contentious topic dispute noticeboard", but I haven't really settled on a title yet. Gatoclass (talk) 06:27, 15 May 2011 (UTC)


 * You have never seen a mediation case that was successful? Goodness! Well, I guess that isn't surprising, because, when mediation is working best, it's almost invisible to all but the involved editors; it's only when it fails, and the dispute proceeds to arbitration, that people notice the dispute. But anyway, here's an example picked at random; most of the cases there were closed as successful. AGK  [&bull; ] 11:51, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Some thoughts
I have a few thoughts about this process, I'm not really involved in AE or any of that, nor do I edit in contentious areas, so I suppose you could consider me a total non-expert.


 * The process appears to be very litigious/court-like in nature. I'm sure this hasn't escaped you an I get the feeling you've deliberately designed it as such, but wikipedia dispute resolution processes tend to deliberately avoid this sort of atmosphere, which invariably ratchets up tension and provokes wikilawyering etc. Do you feel that the overt references to court rooms are neccessary and/or do you feel they are an advantage of the process?


 * The process whereby anyone who wants to bring a case is subject to sanctions reminds me of the laws of Charondas (thanks google) where anybody was said to be free to suggest a change in the law, but to do so they had to put their head in a noose, they would be freed if their proposal passed, but if it didn't well... The result in ancient Sicily was supposedly that nobody ever proposed a new law, even grievious wrongs were left alone because it simply wasn't worth the risk to yourself of proposing it. People quickly learnt just to leave things alone. I suppose the wiki-equivalent is that good contributors in contentious areas with totally legitimate grievances might just let them drop rather than sticking their wiki-neck in it. Totally innocent editors may well just think "Why should I take that risk?" or feel its not worth doing so. Do you think this is a possibility and could it be avoided somehow?


 * The total reverse of that is that the process might lead to some unfair outcomes when a report is made by an editor 'in good standing' against an IP or relatively unknown editor. Admins may feel pressure to administer the topic ban to one or the other even when its comparatively borderline and it will probably seem quite attractive to apply it to the newer editor than the old dog who is perhaps a net advantage to the topic area, whereas other forums have much greater leeway to just hand out WP:TROUTs or whatever. Again, do you think this is likely and could it be dealt with?

Don't mean to lay into you or whatever, but these are just some thoughts I've had, I like the idea on the whole and I don't suppose any of these issues are insumountable. All the best, Bob House 884 (talk) 18:36, 14 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the comments Bob, and no, I'm not in the least bothered by criticism, that's why I have asked for feedback on this proposal :)


 * The process appears to be very litigious/court-like in nature


 * I didn't want to use terminology like "plaintiff" and "defendant" but couldn't think offhand of an alternative. If anyone can think of alternatives that get the point across, I'll be happy to consider them. On the more general question, I'm inclined to the view that many of our existing processes are much too ambiguous and open to misinterpretation, I think it's always better to have a well-defined process where possible, because it leads to less confusion, less argumentation and yes, less wikilawyering.


 * Totally innocent editors may well just think "Why should I take that risk?" or feel its not worth doing so


 * I think there needs to be an element of risk in opening a case firstly, to discourage frivolous cases, and secondly, because there are a lot of content disputes at any one time and I don't think it would be practical to have them all coming straight to this process. Also, if there is no risk for the plaintiff, users could harass their opponents by constantly bringing new cases, causing everyone involved needless stress. IMO the potential sanction on case initiators is an important part of the process.


 * do you think this is likely and could it be dealt with?


 * No, I don't think it's very likely that would happen, I think most admins are intelligent enough to judge a case on its merits. Besides, there are already a lot of inappropriate results in DR in my opinion because of the temptation on admins to sanction everyone involved regardless of the degree of culpability, and that option is not available in this process. Gatoclass (talk) 19:47, 14 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Fair enough, thanks for your prompt and thoughtful replies. I'm interested to see how this develops and I'll probably comment back later. Good luck regardless! Bob House 884 (talk) 20:00, 14 May 2011 (UTC)


 * In response to Bob House's point about legalese, I would propose the terms complainant and respondent, which I use in discussion on the AE noticeboard. The terms are not completely devoid of legal insinuation, but are less so than plaintiff and defendant and could be viable alternatives. In relation to the point about the risk for the initiators of cases, I would agree that it is unseemly—although I do also sympathise with Gatoclass' argument above. AGK  [&bull; ] 20:09, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Applicant also a possibility. Bob House 884 (talk) 00:35, 15 May 2011 (UTC)


 * "Complainant" and "respondent" sound okay to me. In regards to the risk factor for initiators, I think it's important for admins to choose which party is more deserving of sanction, otherwise they may be reluctant to make judgements at all as it's much easier to say "I can't tell who's at fault here" than to say "I think party A is in the wrong". And if judgements are not made, the dispute is likely to continue. Gatoclass (talk) 06:35, 15 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I changed it to "complainant" and "respondent". Thanks for the suggestion. Gatoclass (talk) 06:44, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

More thoughts
I don't know if this will work. But I think, and as mentioned by several people, the risk for the initiating party is too high. You are concerned by frivoulous or borderline cases? That is a very legitimate concern. But the solution is simple. The adjudicating admins will decide on two things 1) whether the respondent deserves a sanction and if not, then 2) whether the request was frivolous. I think, this may be similar to the US civil law, where, the plantiff is not required to pay the defendant's legal expenses, unless it is found that the claim was Frivolous. This is different from other jurisdictions (e.g., in English law) where the loosing party is usually required to pay the winning party's legal expenses. What do you think? - BorisG (talk) 17:56, 31 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I think there needs to be a barrier to initiating new cases. There are a lot of disputes going on at any one time; this process would be likely to be quickly overwhelmed without a filter to entry. Also, I don't think it would be a good idea to be encouraging admins to be deciding every issue. There needs to be some sort of barrier to bringing a case; this one ensures the same degree of accountability for all parties. Gatoclass (talk) 04:36, 1 June 2011 (UTC)


 * But my suggestion that admins will decide whether the case was frivolous IS a barrier. In that case the sanction should apply. - BorisG (talk) 10:52, 1 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Because this is a process for adjudicating disputes regarding certain content-related policies rather than behavioural issues, I don't see much prospect of "frivolous" cases. Almost all content related disputes are substantive, in the sense that you have two or more users who have a concrete disagreement over something. What admins will be called upon to adjudicate under this process would be the validity of the arguments made, not whether a charge was "frivolous" or not. So they will be basically be applying a sanction to the person with the least valid argument. This is not actually a new principle at Wikipedia; it's always been the case, at Arbcom for example, and indeed at AE, that someone who brings a case has his own conduct examined alongside that of his antagonist. This process does little more than formalize that principle. The party who is more wrong gets the sanction, regardless of who started the case. That is effectively what this process is for: weeding out the users who are engaging in problematic editing. It ensures accountability for both parties, and additionally acts as an effective entry filter. On the other hand, a "frivolity" filter would be unlikely to work, since there probably wouldn't be many such cases and admins would be reluctant to make such judgements, just as they have proven reluctant to do at AE. Gatoclass (talk) 15:42, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You have a point. - BorisG (talk) 16:36, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

"However, if arbcom rejects his appeal, his sanction will be increased to a six month topic ban."
This overreaches. Editors appeal because they actually think they have a reason to. The editor may be wrong but it can be explained to them without penalizing them. Overuse of appeals isn't even that common of an occurrence. On top of that, it could impact the decision since many members of Arbcom will not (or I guess: should not) want to dole out a lengthy addition arbitrarily prechosen. Of course punishment is no the intent but that is what it would be. How often do appeals come up anyways?Cptnono (talk) 06:00, 1 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Overuse of appeals under current processes may not be that common, but this is a new process that may generate considerably more cases and potentially more appeals. Part of the idea of this proposal is to reduce the burden as much as possible on existing DR processes, and potential penalties for initiating cases and appeals should achieve that. I think it's worth remembering that no-one is obliged to either bring a case before this process, or to appeal a case; that's entirely up to the user concerned, and as long as he knows the potential risks beforehand there can be no question of unfair treatment. The initial sanctions for offences under this process are not that heavy in any case, so if a user doesn't want to risk an appeal sanction, it's not as if he has to sit out a draconian ban. Gatoclass (talk) 07:17, 1 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Agree with Cptnono here. This is too draconian. We need some humility. Quoting a US Court of Appeals, An appeal that lacks merit is not always—or often—frivolous. - BorisG (talk) 10:59, 1 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Well if a consensus is established that six months is too draconian, we could always reduce the sanction, to say, three months. I think the principle itself is a sound one however. Gatoclass (talk) 16:00, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * My point is that the increase of the sanction (3 or 6 months) should only apply if the appeal is determined to be frevolous, not simply lacking merit. - BorisG (talk) 16:10, 1 June 2011 (UTC)


 * As I said in the thread above, I don't think mere "frivolity" will act as a strong enough filter. Admins have proven notoriously reluctant to apply sanctions for frivolity - the most I've ever seen for such behaviour is a warning. The majority of appeals under this process would probably have some merit, just as the majority of content disputes have a degree of merit on both sides, so purely frivolous appeals would not be frequent. The appeal process needs the automatic sanction for failure in my opinion. And again, I reiterate that nobody is obliged to resort to the appeals process, so it's always going to be a calculated risk on the part of the appellant. Gatoclass (talk) 16:22, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Battlefield mentality
This proposal clearly shows the battlefield mentality we should be reducing:


 * "Any user with more than 500 mainspace edits can bring a content dispute related to a contentious topic area to this noticeboard. The user, known as the complainant, will explain how he believes his opponent, known as the respondent, is violating content policies with his edits.

It isn't an "opponent". It is someone they disagree with. If admins are seeing this as a battlefield and not what it really is then we have a problem. Yes some editors view it as a battlefield but the assumption that all complaints are based on winning is a bad assumption. Yes, it might look like people are picking on one side or the other but that is what happens when editors continuously exhibit poor behavior. If admins at AE would have sanctioned a couple editors harsher a year ago and then escalated sanctions then they would not have repeated the same mistakes. More counseling is also need for first time offenders so they do not get sucked into a battlefield mentality. The decision actually does not mention simple "notification".

"Opponent" just screams that the admins are as much to blame as the regular editors. Trying to reduce the workload of something you volunteered for is weird. Just don't volunteer there anymore. Let others handle it or else it makes it look (I doubt it would be reality) like you have a need to be there for some reason. And if you do volunteer, think about what is the best for the topic area, not what saves you time.Cptnono (talk) 06:09, 1 June 2011 (UTC)


 * If you are having a debate with someone, the person on the other side of the debate is your opponent. That is just common usage and has nothing to do with "battlefield" mentalities. However, if you think the language could be improved, I'm happy to hear suggestions, this is a draft proposal after all. Gatoclass (talk) 07:01, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree with Gatoclass here. There are limited number of volunteer admins and a process that uses too much of their time won't work. - BorisG (talk) 10:58, 1 June 2011 (UTC)