Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Content dispute resolution

Medcom

Is either MedCom or MedCab aware of this RFC? --Xavexgoem (talk) 22:18, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Not through any official notification specifically to them, though I would assume the editors involved there will see the public announcements. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 22:20, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I was informed on Skype. At any rate, I would let PhilKnight know, and the entirety of MedCom. Their opinions are paramount. Xavexgoem (talk) 22:49, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Xavexgoem, I think letting MedCom know is a good idea. I'll leave notes on the Israel Palestine Collaboration, the Ireland Collaboration, and the Sri Lanka Reconciliation talk pages. PhilKnight (talk) 22:56, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I've already let the rest of the Mediation Committee know via our mailing list. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:08, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

My disappointment that the MedCom was not notified about this RfC stands. Perhaps in future the arbitrators will seek our input; I'm sure we'll have something to say of value. One oversight can be quite forgiven, however. AGK 14:39, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Is the Committee sufficiently active in editing content to resolve content disputes?

NuclearWarfare recently ran a survey of arbitrator editing activity. Counting all mainspace edits including vandalism reversions and minor copyedits, how long has it taken Wikipedia's current arbitrators to make their most recent 500 article edits? The results are surprising.

For the period ending 9 May 2009, only two arbitrators had made 500 mainspace edits within the last 30 days. Six arbitrators have made fewer than 500 mainspace edits within the last 12 months. A breakdown follows; for complete results of the survey see User:NuclearWarfare/Arb Activity. Each date provided is the occasion, counting backwards from 9 May 2009, where the arbitrator's most recent 500 mainspace edits began:

500 mainspace edits in calendar year 2009

1. Wizardman 2009-04-30
2. Rlevse 2009-04-18
3. Casliber 2009-04-04
4. FaysallF 2009-03-20
5. Jayvdb 2009-03-19

500 mainspace edits beginning calendar year 2008 - present

1. Carcharoth 2008-10-26
2. Risker 2008-10-05
3. Roger Davies 2008-09-25
4. Sam Blacketer 2008-08-13
5. FloNight 2008-07-17
6. Vassyana 2008-07-03
7. Cool Hand Luke 2008-04-04
8. Kirill Lokshin 2008-01-12

500 mainspace edits beginning calendar year 2007 - present

1. Coren 2007-11-19
2. Newyorkbrad 2007-11-18
3. Stephen Bain 2007-10-19

Last 500 edits in ALL mainspaces

Arbitrator 500 edits ago 500 article edits ago Carcharoth 2009-04-08 2008-10-26 Casliber 2009-04-25 2009-04-04 Cool Hand Luke 2009-02-27 2008-04-04 Coren 2009-02-23 2007-11-19 FaysallF 2009-03-30 2009-03-20 FloNight 2009-03-17 2008-07-17 Jayvdb 2009-04-24 2009-03-19 Kirill Lokshin 2009-04-25 2008-01-12 Newyorkbrad 2009-03-06 2007-11-18 Risker 2009-03-10 2008-10-05 Rlevse 2009-04-26 2009-04-18 Roger Davies 2009-03-31 2008-09-25 Sam Blacketer 2008-12-14 2008-08-13 Stephen Bain 2008-09-25 2007-10-19 Vassyana 2009-03-02 2008-07-03 Wizardman 2009-05-01 2009-04-30 Dates valid as of approximately 00:00 UTC May 9, 2009 NW (Talk) (How am I doing?) 01:59, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Submitted for community evaluation. Durova^Charge! 01:23, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Content disputes are rarely solved on article pages alone. Discussion can only happen through edit summaries. Anyone who follows BRD or 0/1RR is going to have less of a mainspace count than someone who doesn't, all else being equal. Wikignomes will have more edits than other fauna. Some articles are more subject to updates than others. If you're indicating a disconnect, can you elaborate on how that hurts the DR process, please? Because it would probably help us metapedians (yeah yeah, "back foul creature" ;-) ). Xavexgoem (talk) 01:47, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrating is hard work. We all know that. But how much hands-on experience could these people have in resolving content disputes if many of them neither mediate content nor contribute much of it recently? A balance of power is generally a good idea. Durova^Charge! 01:52, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I dropped in the last 500 edits across all mainspaces. NW (Talk) ^{(How am I doing?)} 01:59, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Fwiw, disclosure: mine (article space) go back to April 16. Durova^Charge! 02:25, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Fwiw2: My 500 article space edits go back to 2 March 2009. I feel I'm probably a fairly average editor. Though, for comparison, it would be interesting to know what the average edit count would be. Given the table above, it appears the ArbCom is a reasonable representation of Wikipedians. Some editors spend a good deal of time in article space, others spend a lot of time in Wikipedia space - so it should be with ArbCom. SilkTork *^YES! 08:21, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Um, are you sure? There are two Arbs whose last 500 contributions across all areas go back to 2008, and most Arbitrators aren't really doing so much better. Even for the article space edits; if your last 500 go back to anywhere before Fall 2008, I would say you likely need to be working in the mainspace more. Or I would, if ArbCom wasn't so backlogged already. This is a serious issue, and it can only be resolved by the arbitrators seriously stepping up in the time they put it, giving back to MedCom what was originally theirs to handle - content disputes, and allowing MedCom to make binding decisions. NW (Talk) ^{(How am I doing?)} 15:05, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

By all means suggest ways of resolving things differently, but using arb recent mainspace activity as a criteria puts us in a catch-22. Do we spend more time editing mainspace and let more cases build up (please note which arbs have voted to reject requests before saying the committee are accepting too many cases), or do we cut back on editing and work on cases? One of the things I've been working on (but which has got delayed) was a summary of ArbCom activities for the first quarter. If someone else does a rough rundown of that, it gives an idea of the volume of work involved, both on- and off-wiki. This was one of the things I wanted to do this year, but ironically the amount of work involved has pushed even that to the back burner. One thing that is consistently under-estimated is the sheer amount of time spent wading through evidence and workshop pages. If anyone has any idea how to rate that in terms of time spent, or even just have regular stats on the sizes of various pages, that would be a start to getting them under control and readable once again. Carcharoth (talk) 21:36, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Right: your hands are full already with conduct issues. Why was this RfC even contemplated? Durova^Charge! 21:51, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

This whole section takes the wrong premise that ArbCom wants to deal with content issues. It shouldn't and almost certainly doesn't want to. But the same intractable problems keep reoccurring. It maybe that this is a fundamental weakness of the Wikipedia model, but this RfC was intended as a brainstorming to find a good way to deal with the content issues that ArbCom sees pass over its desk and flap ineffectually at as they ban people but see the content issues remain unresolved. Re-read what the RfC introduction says, and you will see this is not a "ArbCom will deal with content issues if you let us" RfC. It is a "there are problems here, what should be done" RfC. "Are the current methods available for resolving disputes over article content adequate? What changes could be made to improve this aspect of Wikipedia?" and so on. In all cases, if the answer is "we don't want ArbCom touching this", that is fine. Just don't jump to conclusions. Carcharoth (talk) 23:18, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

It's more like the Committee jumped to conclusions. Neither MedCom nor MedCab was consulted in this RfC's formulation. They weren't even explicitly informed when it went live. Durova^Charge! 23:27, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Improving communication between MedCom and ArbCom is very important. This whole thing seems telling. Better communication could improve ArbCom's docket. --Xavexgoem (talk) 03:12, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

This was created in response to the RFC from last July; this current iteration of Arbcom agreed to consider and discuss the suggestions from that RFC with the community, and that's what we're doing here. The responses that I see to date are roughly what I had anticipated; that there are other and perhaps better ways of addressing content issues, and that the current Arbitration Committee is not the preferred method. I'm also seeing some other ideas that might be quite useful, and don't involve the Arbitration Committee at all. Let's consider this a bit of a brain storming opportunity; there's a pretty good chance there will be a few ideas that are both well-received and actionable, and it doesn't really matter whether or not they involve the current Arbcom. Risker (talk) 17:31, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, what would you prefer we do? If we decide something on our own, we get pilloried for unilateralism; if we consult with selected groups, we get pilloried for cabalism; and if we ask the community as a whole what they want, we apparently get pilloried for asking the wrong questions of the wrong people. If anyone thinks we're going down the wrong track, they need to tell us; we purposely made our agenda public so that people could be aware of our plans and comment on them before they were put into effect.

It'd be great if every arbitrator could have an admonitor to advise them; but I haven't seen anyone volunteering to fill that role. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 04:06, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Not quite. Right now you're getting criticized primarily because you launched this under false mantle of authority: the initiative is outside the Committee's mandate. That's a big deal: see balance of power. Secondary grounds for criticism are that most of you don't edit much content anymore, you failed to communicate with even the most relevant outside parties, and the Committee is seriously backlogged in fulfilling its actual mandate. Today is the Scientology case's five month anniversary; no Wikipedia arbitration has ever lasted this long before. Want to make me happy? Please mark this darn thing historical, catch up on the backlog, and then perhaps start it up again under your own steam as an editor. If you'd launched it as Kirill Lokshin my response would have been very different. Durova^Charge! 04:34, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 04:59, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Criticism of Proposal #4

The Arbitration Committee has no special authority over other conduct dispute resolution processes. Although improving other DR processes is a good idea in principle, I cannot endorse a proposal that implicitly grants the Committee special privileges (and responsibilities) that it neither has by custom or practice. Nor does the Committee have time to spare from its core responsibilities, even if the change were desirable. Individual arbitrators are encouraged to participate in other processes as editors, the same as we all do. Durova^Charge! 19:33, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

They could however facilitate discussion (maybe create an rfc) and oversee changes to help promote community discussion in them - that's what the proposal is getting at. It's not meant to be suggesting the committee enforce changes for us. --Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 19:41, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

But it's an unnecessary step toward hierarchy and bureaucracy to suggest that the Committee as a body is more authoritative than the rest of us. Each of the arbitrators was elected because they have the respect and trust of the community. Surely, if they participate as Wikipedians on a fundamentally equal footing with the rest of us, their opinions will receive appropriate consideration within our community of equals. ArbCom isn't our boss. Durova^Charge! 20:24, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely. The opposite also has to occur as well. People need to stop hanging on the words of arbitrators and quoting them as gospel. I've seen that happen. It is actually very hard, as an arbitrator, to participate as a Wikipedian on an equal footing. Until you been there, it is difficult to describe taking the arb hat on and off, and trying to maintain a distance from some things because you know thing might end up at arbitration, or to take part in policy discussions while thinking that you might need to interpret this policy in a case, or to take part in RFAs (three arbs at least, voted in a recent RFA), and so on. And now, much as I'd like to stay and discuss this, I need to go and finishing reading some evidence and vote in a case. I'll try and check back here tomorrow. Carcharoth (talk) 23:27, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

It's difficult to describe an arb without his/her hat, when they fail to remove it. ;) Durova^Charge! 23:30, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Durova. It is the nature of ArbCom's position that people incorrectly see ArbCom as being an authority on Wikipedia. It should be made clear that while both Jimbo Wales and the community grant the ArbCom exceptional powers in order to carry out their role of final arbitration in disputes involving user conduct, the body is not an authority as such, and the individuals that make up the ArbCom are fellow editors not special judges. We should resist any creep toward an assumption that ArbCom should have an influence in any area beyond their granted role. SilkTork *^YES! 07:38, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

My impression is that arbcom, though a flawed system, is the best chance we have of establishing some sanity as wikipedia outgrows the "village" framework it once had. When 15 people are stranded on an island, it makes sense for them to make decisions by consensus. When abundant food and good weather swells their population to the thousands, it is no longer feasible to use that system to make decisions. This is the situation we are facing at wikipedia. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:45, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

When a group of people are elected to perform a certain function, and are so overwhelmed that they lag behind in performing it, one doesn't broaden their responsibilities. Durova^Charge! 14:09, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

What extra responsibilities are you referring to? — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:27, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

In 2003-2004 ArbCom was set up to manage conduct disputes; MedCom was conceived at the same time to handle content disputes. ArbCom as a body has no authority over content; that's MedCom's realm. If individual arbitrators want to open an RfC on anything they have the same standing as any other editor. But for ArbCom as a body to start this is very inappropriate: ArbCom oversees conduct, not content. Durova^Charge! 04:49, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree it can be useful for arbcom to participate as individual editors, but besides other reservations expressed above, remember that the most contentious issues tend to need a lot of study and even research to make a sensible suggestions, so it is doubtful that the Arbcom members could work on very many articles anyway. Instead Wikipedia needs to find incentives for neutral editors to respond to Noticeboards, RfC's, etc. While I keep thinking money to pay admins to deal with the most intractable issues (especially where there is harassment of admins) is one incentive, maybe there are others. Like an editor-nominated weekly barnster award for those who move from contentious to cooperative editing. And an official fish wack for uncooperative editors that they can't remove for a week :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:25, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Both of those are interesting ideas, and at least the first one might be workable. I have trouble seeing how we could really formally whack someone's page for a week without an ArbCom ruling to that effect, though, and I don't know they've ever done anything quite like that. I wouldn't necessarily mind seeing it happen, though. John Carter (talk) 14:08, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Re Durova: the WP:Arbitration policy is clear that arbcom may hear "any dispute", but "The Committee will primarily investigate interpersonal disputes." The traditional role of arbcom was simply to ban and desysop people, but because WP grows policy organically, it makes sense for arbcom to investigate ways that their role may change over time.

Medcom, on the other hand, have no authority over anything; they are simply mediators. Moreover, there are two caveats with medcom that make them inappropriate for the sorts of articles that are being discussed here:

• The articles that we are discussing here are ones where mediation is not likely to be useful.
• Medcom refuses to deal with any sort of conduct disputes (their policy page does not state this but it has been explained to me on more than one occasion). The issues that we have in our most problematic articles are a mixture of content and conduct issues, and neither one can be solved individually.

It's clear to many people that some sort of content arbitration will become necessary; the question is what form it will take. Shooting Arbcom for being the wrong messenger to deliver this news won't make the news disappear. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:39, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

CBM, ArbCom is lagging in their core mission. Does it make sense to task sixteen overburdened people with a new set of responsibilities? Of course not. These sixteen people are so heavily tasked already that most of them are rusty in the area this pertains to. If balance of power considerations don't weigh with you (they certainly do with me), then how about they're already overcommitted? Durova^Charge! 15:12, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Most of the discussion here is about bodies other than arbcom (either a separate group, or ad hoc committees). The underlying issue here is the need for some sort of final decision making process for certain content disputes; arbcom slowness is a separate issue. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:34, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion

When this item on the agenda was discussed, I said the following: "Suggest providing sections for people to comment on specific issues (and a free-form section for other issues to be raised), otherwise it will be impossible to analyse the results. Suggest adding option for the community to try and work up new methods of resolving such disputes, plus asking them to rate the existing methods (talk page discussion, noticeboards, mediation). Also, some of these questions are multiple questions and need separating out, especially the last one.". If any of these ideas would work, please could someone use them and run with them. I also made a separate point that the community should be addressing some of these questions, not ArbCom through starting RfCs. The prime motivation for starting these RfCs is because these are long-term issues that need addressing. Carcharoth (talk) 21:32, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Really not interested in that premise at all: ArbCom is not a gatekeeper of our other site processes. See begging the question. Durova^Charge! 21:56, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

If it helps, think of this as something started by any random person. Don't shoot the messenger. The RfC does not say that ArbCom will do any of this. It is asking "what should be done to solve intractable problems"? Think of it as ArbCom trying to take leadership on an issue that has been ignored for too long. It doesn't matter who resolves these content issues, as long as they get sorted. Or if they are truly intractable, that something gets done. Or to put it another way, am I right in saying that a large part of your reaction here is because of who started the RfC? If MedCom had started an RfC like this, or if some individual editor had started it, would your reaction have been the same? Carcharoth (talk) 23:13, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

This is just like the BLP innovation the Committee tried to tack onto the footnoted quotes case a year ago: regardless of merit, the Committee has no business attempting to extend its power as a body in such a manner. Those among you who like this idea ought to have proposed it as individuals rather than attempting to wrap yourselves an a mantle of authority that was never within your mandate. Durova^Charge! 23:24, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Look at the first words of the RfC: "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." It certainly would help to think of it as written by some random person, but that's not the way it was written. Durova^Charge! 23:34, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

"consensus, once reached, should be enforceable..."

I noticed this proposal by Kotniski: "That consensus, once reached, be enforceable until a new consensus is reached." This really cuts to the heart of the problem. It is impossible, with the most problematic articles under the current system, to "enforce" any sort of consensus, because there is no consensus in the first place. Moveover, in some areas (e.g. Israel/Palestine) it is unlikely that consensus will spontaneously develop. What is needed to implement Kotniski's proposal is some process by which an actually binding decision can be made in the absence of consensus. It would be silly to call that "mediation" instead of "arbitration". — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:42, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Well yes, I can agree with that. I think this is sort of covered by my proposal, which has a point about admins taking sensible interim decisions while the consensus-forming process continues (i.e. instead of the current "random protection" policy which self-evidently rewards aggressive edit-warring). But yes, we do have to accept that there are issues where consensus in the sense of an overwhelming numerical majority is never going to be reached, and these have to be decided more on the basis of strength of arguments than on numbers (with a compromise often, but not always, being the best solution). I don't care what this is called - it's certainly more arbitration than mediation - but I still believe that it's best if the admin community make this kind of call in the first instance, and then ArbCom review it if asked. If a party is allowed to jump straight to the higher instance (ArbCom), then the possibility of impartial review ("appeal") is lost. --Kotniski (talk) 15:53, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

The difficulty is that the current setup has no provision for an admin (even one who is scrupulously uninvolved) to come to a page and made a judgement about the content. If someone tried, they would be shouted down. Perhaps something like John Carter's proposal (#7) to allow arbcom to set up ad hoc committees would help. Then arbcom would not be ruling on the content at all (the ad hoc group would), but it would be clear that the ruling of the ad hoc committee is binding in the short term. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:02, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I know what the current setup is; that's why we're making proposals to change it.;) Where an immediate short-term decision is required (i.e. basically an ongoing editwar - but let's be careful, the absence of an edit-war mustn't be an obstacle to a party's seeking a decision of this nature, or again we'll be back in a situation where editwarring is rewarded), then it has to be an admin that makes it - the other processes simply have the wrong time-scale. But I quite like the ad hoc committee idea as well - they could review the admin's decision and change it fairly quickly if necessary, then keep the rest of the process on track.--Kotniski (talk) 16:29, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

The advantage of forcing arbcom to set up an ad hoc committee first is that it means this solution will only be applied to articles where ordinary editing really has broken down. If any admin could step into any article at any time, it will lead to overenforcement; sometimes the process is very slow even when it is functional, and some admins would be only too eager to "help". But if a committee must be established first, that will be a sufficient obstacle to keep the solution to only the articles where it is truly required. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:39, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, I see what you're getting at, but - well - "breaking down" happens fast, and committees happen slowly. While sometimes admins might occassionally be too eager to help, in most cases an eagerness to help would be doing us a great service. Much mass-scale disruption would be prevented if disagreements could be forcibly kept on track from an early stage. The present system (protect at random, admonish and leave) not only fails to do that, but actually rewards behaviour that is generally considered disruptive.--Kotniski (talk) 08:20, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree completely about the problems with the current policy of random page protection. My concern is that the traditional role of administrators is about site maintenance, not about mediating disputes of making neutral content decisions. So you are proposing changing that somehow. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:43, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'd prefer admins to answer the question "what is the current consensus" rather than "what is the right content" (and that isn't anything new - that's what they do at AfD etc.) But where there's an editwar (unless consensus was previously reached and one side isn't respecting it), there probably is no clear numerical consensus, so the admin would be making a kind of temporary judgment based on the arguments advanced so far (and this isn't totally revolutionary, since evaluating consensus at AfD is supposed to involve looking at the arguments, not counting votes). From there it seems natural that the admin should continue steering the consensus-forming process or taking action to prevent it from being disrupted, as necessary. But of course if there was another person or body better equipped to take over that task, such as the proposed ad hoc committee, then that would be all the better.--Kotniski (talk) 15:36, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

The difficulty I see is that, unless a new system is changed somehow, an admin who actually tried to implement the sort of thing you propose would simply be taken to arbcom and desysoped. Imagine an admin who arrives at a page, announces "this is how it will be", and tries to enforce that decision. Without previous institutional support from arbcom, it would be impossible. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:10, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I'm not denying that this is a proposal for something new, which would need to get community consensus before being implemented (and then the institutional support for admins so acting would come from that consensus, which is even more meaningful than ArbCom's). But there would be safeguards anyway: (i) we would expect admins to engage in dialogue with interested parties to ensure their arguments have been listened to, not just turn up and make an irreversible decision; (ii) complaints about admins' decisions and actions could be made to AN and to ArbCom – not to get the admin desysopped, but just to get a good-faithed but incorrect decision changed. --Kotniski (talk) 08:31, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

what makes a new consensus

What's the consensus for what makes a new consensus? What's the consensus on what makes an old consensus?

Why not bite the bullet and just fully protect every article in mainspace? :-p Xavexgoem (talk) 21:07, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Are you actually suggesting something, or is this a purely humorous intervention?--Kotniski (talk) 08:20, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm just worried we're at the tip of a slippery slope. --Xavexgoem (talk) 22:09, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I think the slippery slope is what we have now, where in effect decisions about "what the consensus is" are expected to be made by consensus, which (in rare but important cases) just doesn't work. We must recognize - in a setup where consensus does not and cannot possibly mean unanimity - that the procedure for deciding what consensus is needs to be different than the procedure for deciding (through consensus) what content is best. Political metaphor (yes I know what Wikipedia is not): the people vote in elections, but disputes about the results of those elections are decided by the courts, not (unless the courts so rule) by having another election. --Kotniski (talk) 08:31, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with Kotniski. Right now, horrible as it sounds, the definition of "consensus" is only itself a matter of "consensus". This makes trying to enact resolutions to a lot of things that much harder. Having something else, which can be more clearly defined, available to be used in the most difficult cases would probably be useful. In a lot of cases, simply having some sort of temporary resolution, good or bad, might be enough to stimulate other activity, like, maybe, finding sources, which could ultimately result in a clearer resolution than even "consensus", whatever that is. John Carter (talk) 15:13, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

What of problem tendentious civil POV-pushing?

Those who've been fairly experienced in the area can recognise this sort of editing quickly. However, sometimes, it doesn't matter how much experience one has before they lose their cool when tackling this kind of editing - all sorts of incivility, attacks, editwars and appearances of "battles" can result from the frustration and impatience. I think it would be helpful if someone could add a view that receives community support, yet also answers the following questions:

1. Is the problem being given enough consideration when issuing sanctions to the editor whose conduct deteriorated from tackling such editing?
2. Are we (as a community) giving enough guidance on how to deal with that sort of editing?
3. When it is being brought to everyone's attention, (whether it's at article RFC, some form of mediation, a Wikiquette alert, ANI, or even a ArbCom case etc.), are we helping, or are we letting them fester?
4. If we are letting them fester so that multiple ANIs are filed within a relatively short period of time, is it because we aren't aware of the problem til it's too late, or is it because we don't have the time or patience or sanity to deal with it?
5. How can the community improve in addressing these issues (if at all)? How can ArbCom help and improve in addressing these issues (if at all)? Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:48, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Watchlist notice?

This could lead to big changes, although it doesn't seem to be going anywhere at the moment. The failure of this RfC kinda shows the need for someone to help break the "consensus" deadlocks. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:34, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Communications

See now Wikipedia:WikiProject Dispute Resolution. Peter jackson (talk) 11:41, 18 November 2011 (UTC)