User talk:Gatoclass/CTDNdraft

What motivated you to author this proposal?
This proposed process is a result of my years of observation of dispute resolution processes, particularly with regard to contentious topic areas at WP:AE. Like many other Wikipedians, I am persuaded that en.wiki desperately needs more effective DR processes if we hope to retain quality editors, because I have seen far too many competent, good faith users quit in disgust over the years because of this project's extremely ponderous and largely toothless DR mechanisms. Above all, I believe we need DR processes that are both fast and fair to all parties; our current methods too frequently fail on both counts in my view. The process on this page may not be the last word in dispute resolution, but it does represent a small step in what I hope to be a more positive direction. There are other possible directions of course; the important thing I think is that we continue experimenting until we find the best possible approach.

Why do we need this dispute resolution process?
Contentious topic areas have long been a problem for Wikipedia. These areas tend to attract partisan supporters on one or both sides who, either subconsciously or deliberately, attempt to promote a particular point of view or stifle alternative viewpoints. Groups of likeminded editors can use their numbers to circumvent Wikipedia's content policies, or to wage edit wars with other groups, resulting in biased or substandard content. Good faith users are driven away from the topic area, and sometimes from Wikipedia itself, by these tactics. Disputes involving contentious topic areas have historically clogged up dispute resolution pages and wasted huge amounts of the community's time and energy.

Many different methods of reducing tensions or bringing order to contentious topic area pages have been attempted by the Wikipedia community, invariably with limited success. Part of the problem has been that disputes perceived as content-related (as opposed to conduct-related) have often been considered off-limits to existing dispute resolution processes. However, there is often a fine line between a content dispute and a conduct issue, as user misconduct is frequently manifested only (or mainly) through violation of content policies.

What is required, therefore, is an effective method of dealing with users who routinely misapply content policies as a means of&mdash;or at least with the result of&mdash;subverting those very policies. There are indeed plenty of examples of such methods being advocated or utilized under existing DR processes, but they have often gone unrecognized. The process described on this page seeks to formalize such tacitly recognized methods under a more comprehensive and more rigorous, but ultimately simpler and more accessible process.

But aren't you describing an attempt to adjudicate content disputes, and isn't that forbidden?
Under the existing paradigm, ARBCOM itself is designed to resolve conduct rather than content disputes. However, even ARBCOM has long recognized the legitimacy of evaluating the content of mainspace edits as a means of assessing conduct. For example, it is not a content dispute, but a conduct issue, when somebody adds a demonstrable falsehood to an article, or misrepresents a source to say something it plainly does not, and continues to do so after the error has been brought to his attention. Perhaps the clearest example of this principle can be seen in this thread, where two sitting Arbs correct an administrator labouring under this very misapprehension (a not uncommon misapprehension, I think it fair to add).

Some other examples where ARBCOM has judged given edits to be in violation of content policies:


 * WP:V (specifically, misuse of sources):
 * WP:OR:
 * WP:UNDUE (or WP:FRINGE):

ARBCOM itself only adjudicates conduct issues, but if necessary is prepared to evaluate users' adherence to content policies when doing so, as can be seen in the above diffs. In short, it is not in fact forbidden for administrators to evaluate whether or not the content of a given mainspace edit, or set of edits, is legitimate under the existing content policies and guidelines. What has been lacking up to now is a systematic method by which admins can apply such evaluations, under a process that protects both the interests of the encyclopedia as well as the rights of individual users. It is this shortcoming in the existing policy framework, for contentious topic areas, that this proposed process seeks to address.

What is the scope of this process?
As indicated above, the process will initially cover alleged breaches of WP:V, WP:OR and WP:UNDUE. WP:NPOV itself (apart from UNDUE) will not initially be covered by this process as NPOV is broader in scope than the other policies and may prove more difficult to adjudicate. Concerns about chronic POV-pushing should instead be addressed at other venues such as WP:AE. Should this process prove effective, NPOV could be included in the above list in a trial of its own.

Typical issues handled by this process involving WP:V might include, for example, misrepresentations of source, insertion of demonstrable falsehoods into articles, or of claims unsupported by a source or only supported by dubious sources; and so on.

I am of the opinion that disputes concerning V, OR or UNDUE cover the majority of breaches in Wikipedia mainspace, though obviously there are some breaches that are not covered by these guidelines. I am open to suggestions as to what other areas of policy the process might conceivably be used to cover, either initially or at some future time.

What's wrong with Arbcom Enforcement? Is this new process intended to replace it?
Arbcom Enforcement has a number of significant flaws in my view.


 * Firstly, penalties are handed out on a somewhat arbitrary basis, with no clear agreement on what penalties should be applied for given infractions. AE also works on the "escalating sanctions" principle, meaning heavier sanctions for repeated infractions. In effect, this means that a user can end up being topic banned indefinitely for the most minor infraction, like say a breach of 3RR or an honest mistake (something like the "three strikes and you're out" laws applied in some jurisdictions). This process tends to work against good faith users who are heavily involved in a given topic area, because it is only human to occasionally make technical errors or indeed errors of judgement, and their detractors can usually be relied upon to seize every such opportunity to try and rid themselves of a seasoned opponent.


 * The second problem with AE is that it is a very open-ended process, so that any number of users can make any number of comments regarding any alleged misbehaviour by an involved party once a case has been opened. This may to some extent have a cathartic effect, but for administrators it means having to wade through a great deal of "evidence" before coming to a decision, which is time-consuming and an obvious deterrent to admin participation.


 * Thirdly, in the AE model, frequent filing of cases is likely to be interpreted as WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour warranting sanction. But a good faith user working in a contentious topic area will probably encounter numerous examples of tendentious editing; so that under the AE model he may soon find himself facing a choice of either risking an indef ban for BATTLEGROUND conduct, or of foregoing dispute resolution altogether, neither of which are desirable outcomes.

AE has some other flaws, but these are some of the main issues the new process is designed to address.

This new process is not intended, at least initially, to replace AE, since in spite of its flaws, AE currently has a broader scope. Rather, the new process is intended to complement AE by introducing a venue for dealing relatively quickly with a number of common types of disputes.

Won't this process compromise the independence of participating administrators?
No more so IMO than under any other dispute resolution process. Administrators are already subject to frequent accusations of bias when adjudicating disputes, and will surely be subject to similar accusations under this process, but there is no more reason to treat such accusations seriously here than under other processes. What this process does include that is lacking in other processes, however, is accountability for participating admins, in that they may face bans from adjudicating cases under this process for making poor or unsound decisions.

Won't this process just increase the burden on administrators?
The burden on admins may at first increase with an initial flurry of cases, but as bans are handed out the number of new cases would be expected to drop sharply. I am also hopeful that the relatively narrow scope of this process, together with the tight restrictions on evidence, will encourage more admins to participate.

What advantages does this process have over existing processes?

 * Accountability for all involved parties, including adjudicating administrators.
 * Defined and limited sanctions for offending parties. Sanctions are large enough to discourage misconduct but not so great as to encourage sockpuppetry. Sanctions do not increase over time as it is assumed that all users are capable of making honest errors of judgement from time to time; in short this process protects good faith editors who occasionally make errors of judgement, at the same time as it provides an effective method of keeping chronic offenders out of circulation.
 * Eliminates the risk of a "false consensus" on content, where a temporary (perhaps manipulated) majority allows a group to trump policy through sheer weight of numbers. This is achieved through the fact that adjudications under this process are never binding on the content of the article itself; they only make a judgement as to which user has applied policy more appropriately at a given moment. The judgement may be wrong of course, but since it is not binding on content, and the penalty to be applied is limited, a wrong decision has a limited effect. The process is based on the assumption that experienced administrators will get it right more often than they get it wrong, and that over time the more responsible editors will therefore benefit to the detriment of their opponents.
 * Users can resort to this process an unlimited number of times without fear of being branded vexatious or of having a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. Users are encouraged to resort to this process as a means of breaking deadlocks over certain types of adjudicable disputes. The discouragement to vexatious use of this process is built in per the accountability section.
 * Because of the requirement to give offenders an opportunity to self-revert before resorting to this process, it is anticipated that many minor disputes that might otherwise snowball into long edit wars involving multiple users, can be nipped in the bud without ever coming to dispute resolution.

How do you know this process will work?

 * I don't. That's why it will be trialed for six months, reviewed, and possibly trialed an additional six months after that, before being adopted.