User:TransporterMan/Sandbox/3

This is a proposal for a content committee, a board of editors empowered by the community to make binding decisions on content issues where all other methods of dispute resolution have failed.

Background

The idea of a group of Wikipedians having the right to make final, binding decisions about content issues flies in the face of the wiki principles of Wikipedia. At the same time, however, intransigent battles over content - those in which the parties cannot come to consensus about the content, but continue to wrangle over it - are often resolved by default rather than by consensus: the proponent of one position becomes so aggravated that he commits conduct errors which causes him to be banned or blocked, thus allowing the other editor's position to prevail, or more often one party simply gives up the fight with the same result. When a position prevails under such circumstances, it is often not because the edits in question are proper under Wikipedia standards but rather because the editors involved in the dispute were the only ones who had taken notice or cared about the dispute. Months or years can pass before the questionable edits are noted and tagged for review and months more can pass before any review is forthcoming. In such circumstances, the quality of the encyclopedia suffers to the point that failing to strictly adhere to Wikipedia's collaborative principles does less damage to the encyclopedia than leaving the errors in place. There are also certain content disputes which are so influenced by canvassing or by strong real-world positions that the regular editing processes break down or cannot reliably function.

Binding resolution of content disputes has happened in the past, through remedies at Arbitration cases that have set up RFCs of which the final result has been binding for a period of time, generally a few years, but there is no present way to resolve these issues without arbitration, and at times this can cause severe disruption to the community.

A proposed way of addressing this issue would be the formation of a "Content Committee" which could help the involved parties by providing some sort of binding resolution in regards to the content issue. This would be most likely used with disputes over article titles.

Committee outline

The committee would have the following features.

• A board of 11 or so members, elected by the community.
• The positions of the members in regard to a dispute will be considered only if there is no or weak community consensus on the issues in question
• Just as with ArbCom, the members will have the discretion to accept or reject a case.

• Cases will only be accepted if all of the following are true:

• First, there has been sustained and substantial talk page discussion between the involved editors about the dispute.
• Second, other methods of content dispute resolution must have been tried and failed. At a minimum, 3O or DRN and either an RFC or mediation. Those efforts may have failed for any reason, including an involved editor's failure or refusal to participate.
• Third, productive community discussion of the issue has ceased, been exhausted, or become interminable.
• Fourth, the case will only address content issues and will not address conduct issues.
• Fifth, some factor, circumstance, or characteristic causes the dispute to affect the encyclopedia in a way which is substantially more significant, impactful, or harmful than ordinary, everyday unresolved content disputes, with the purpose of this fifth requirement being to prevent the use of the committee from becoming ordinary or routine and thus supplanting the ordinary consensus decision-making process.

• Any editor may request that a case be considered by the committee, such requests are not limited to editors involved in the case.
• The consent of the editors involved in a case is not required in order for the committee to accept a case.
• The decision of the committee to accept or reject a case is not subject to review, appeal, or rejection by any person, including the editors involved in the case.

Decision process

• After deciding to accept a case:

• The members will first weigh and evaluate the existing discussions between the involved editors and determine whether a consensus already exists (much like an administrator does in closing an Articles for Deletion discussion). If so, the committee will plainly identify and state that consensus, and
• In cases in which weak or no consensus among the involved editors is found coming into the process, and the case is accepted for discussion, the community must be invited to participate to discuss and attempt to come to consensus about the dispute by a date chosen by the members (or their clerks). This will ordinarily be done in a structured RFC format, with the two (or more) views with the dispute to be discussed in an organized manner.

• If (insert a number, 6 perhaps?) or more uninvolved editors participate and are able to, along with the involved editors, come to a consensus about the dispute by the designated date, the committee will merely certify that consensus.
• If by the designated date fewer than (number inserted above) uninvolved editors have participated or the matter still fails to come to consensus even with the participation of the additional uninvolved editors, then the members will then publicly discuss the matter and, taking into consideration the discussions of the involved editors and of any uninvolved editors who have participated during the initial discussion phase of the arbitration, will decide on the matter by voting. However, when required to make a content decision, members must follow the standing consensus of the community expressed in policy and guidelines whenever applicable. They will, therefore, make their decisions, first, on the basis of established policy and guidelines and, second, if no policy or guideline applies or if policies and guidelines, or their application, are unclear then upon the basis of what is best for and best satisfies the mission of the encyclopedia. As representatives of the community, the members will not make a decision which requires them to create a local (IAR) exception to existing policy or guidelines (but the committee may determine, and enforce, a consensus to establish a local exception which either already exists or which is reached during the initial discussion phase of the process).

Enforcement and effect of committee decisions

• The committee will be empowered to enforce the consensus and content decisions through blocks and page protection. Since consensus about content can change, each decision shall ordinarily state two expiration dates as well as safeguards: A date before which no changes to the content in dispute can be made by any editor without first being brought to the committee for approval and a date, ordinarily later, before which any of the editors involved in the dispute may not make changes in that content without the consent of the committee. Decisions of the committee will also be subject to revocation or modification by the committee if matters change which render the prior decision inappropriate or inapplicable.
• The committee may not create policy or guidelines, save and except for policy and guidelines affecting the organization and operation of the committee. Prior decisions of the committee shall not create precedent or be otherwise binding upon subsequent decisions of the committee or upon the community as a whole.

Misc

• An involved editor's failure or refusal to participate in the process is not to be considered to be a bar to the process or to devalue or waive arguments previously made by that party.
• A strong recusal and voting policy must be included in the policy establishing the committee to provide standards and processes for recusing members who are not wholly neutral in any particular case, establishing quorums, and analyzing voting results.