Commons talk:Centralised community discussion

Comments/Input

Ask asked on the chat by Kanonkas:

What is lacking is the proper definition of parties. You have to distinguish what you want. Do you want only people who are a part of a problem/conflict to participate and if so thus limit the number of participants upfront? Or do you want as many people as possible to express their views? In the latter case you have to make this clear upfront. Also the "roles" must be clear. People should feel in a safe envirnoment to openly talk and discuss without fear of being victimized. It might also be a good idea to distinguish between (1) a problem with one difficult user encountered over and over again and (2) a problem with two users constantly having a problem with each other and (3) a general problem about policy/changes/rules where many people have different views and consensus is far away so the problem stays stalled. The procedure should be as clear and simple as possible to provide for these three different possibilities but care must be given to ensure that all rules work for these three different matters. So it might be needed to have some rules that are only valid for the three types. MoiraMoira (talk) 11:15, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

• In my opinion the discussion should have some sort of binding end to it by means of a committee (maybe like nl:Wikipedia:Arbitragecommissie). This is to ensure that discussion will not continu endlessly and starts to become a repetition of earlier discussed points.
  In a conflict I think it is essential to first have the involved parties express their view / opinion on the conflict. If this conflict is related to matters that are not clearly specified as either desired or undesired the whole community could be asked to participate in a poll. This poll can both ask for the severity of the problem as experienced by the community as well as the desired continuation/discontinuation of the supposed problematic behaviour.
  A clear end resulting in either a binding decision or a change of guidelines is necessary to provide a clear conclusion for the community and to prevent the discussions from turning into a chatforum or troll party. JZ85 (talk) 13:57, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I was asked to comment on this too, and I must disagree with the above. If Commons wants or needs something binding, such as an arbitration committee, it should be proposed as such. Reading this page, this project isn't like that, and I would be against anything binding resulting from this process. I also oppose any formal committee for this; if we need a dedicated process for centralised discussion, admins should be able to comment and take action, seeking advice from other administrators if they run into difficulties. I get the sense that this is centralised discussion about important issues, not sensitive or binding dispute resolution. Fears about chatforums or troll parties can only be tested if this gains consensus, but I believe such fears are unfounded. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 14:19, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

on not having an arbitration committee and yet having something binding

I would like to see Commons avoid having an arbitration committee, and yet... have something that binds. if there is a need to, for example, remove a sysop, (the example I am going to focus on for the rest of this since it was a bit bumpy before) there has to be a way to accomplish it, or chaos will result. It has to come from within the community. Please remember that the various arbcoms ultimately derive their power, at least in part, from the communities they serve. An arbcom's decisions about users are enforced by admins... if no admin enforced a decision, it would not happen. (of course if a number of admins started doing things that were contravention, not just "choosing not to enforce", the arbcom might well go to the stewards and ask for admin removals... but even there, there is a chain of legitimacy where, at least in my view, power flows from the community.

So, how could this work? My theory is that if something is put in place that the vast majority of admins and crats and users support, it could be considered to be binding... as a steward I am not going to honor a random request from someone saying "desysop so and so" but I would honor one if it came from someone saying "here's the RfC, and here's the outcome, and here's the pointer to Commons adopted policy that says that RfCs of this format are binding" ... Because the power to desysop, although technically carried out by stewards, has to tie back to the community or to an authorised body.

So what is being proposed here is something that, in light of our past experiences with this, would bring a bit more structure and clear community approval, as the last time was not any fun at all, for anyone. ++Lar: t/c 15:59, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

If the issue is measuring consensus, I would think that Bureaucrats fit the bill. They're elected to do that mainly in the case of RFAs, so I don't see any particular issue with having them do so in the example provided. If there is community consensus to desysop someone, then... that's all that's needed. No ArbCom, and no other body to make binding decision - just the community. Perhaps if you pointed out what went wrong with having bureaucrats do the job previously it'd be helpful for focusing discussion.  — Mike.lifeguard 19:50, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

How do you know if there was or wasn't community consensus in a particular case? Who judges? We have had at least one desysop which was quite contentious. Some improvement in clarity around that process would be good. That's not the same as saying we should have an arbcom. I would like to avoid that. ++Lar: t/c 23:19, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, well, one could say the same about our RFAs. Who is to say that there is a consensus in that case or any other the community undertakes? The point is that we somehow get on with it. I didn't see that even during the contentious desysop the bureaucrats had any particular difficulty seeing the wishes of the community. If our bureaucrats can't determine consensus, then we have much bigger problems to worry about.  — Mike.lifeguard 19:15, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Well I'm not saying that having 'crats decide consensus in wider scope than current is "bad". Far from it. But in the contentious desysop I'm thinking of, it WAS hard to determine what the real community consensus was.... was it that of the people who participated at the desysop vote? They weren't exactly a cross section of the entire community. Because that process went straight to the desysop vote, it was hard to tell if it really was the commmunitys wish or not. Hence there was activity afterward to try to add a bit more structure to the run up to such a vote so it had more participation and a more clear process to try to resolve the issue before it got that far. ++Lar: t/c 02:13, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

All you would be doing is changing who makes that judgement call. It wouldn't change the fact that someone still has to do and that it could be just as contentious. Rocket000 (talk) 12:39, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

In the end, yes. But not at the start, which is a significant change. Basically this proposal would stop most of these "contentious" DRFAs to get through in the first place. So nobody would necessary need to do the contentious bit, unless it turns out the process (CCD) is in favour of removing user X's privileges. It would change the desysop process on other parts, but in a good way IMO. For example this process would prevent an angry mob of users targeting user X to get desysoped. Now many may ask why, and I'll say so. We should have a process where we can at least address any "admin abuse", instead of having a public vote, where practically anybody can vote, including the "angry mob" in this case, and succeed in a summary removal of user X's administrator privileges. The bureaucrats knows better than that, but I still prefer a system where we can address these sorts of issues, other than AN/DRFA. By using DRFA some sort of "end result" (desysop or not) will be the result after one week (unless extended). I don't think that's good at all. First (as usual), one would use Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems to report "admin abuse". If the consensus is to give the admin a warning, and move on, so be it. However, if the administrator "supposedly" ignores the community's wishes, and continues, some may think we should use AN again. Which I agree with. Yet again, if the consensus is to let the admin get a stern warning, so be it. However if this continues, and the admin, well simply ignores and do what they wish, a user may actually consider a DRFA. I disagree, and think we should try to address the problems once again. But where exactly? DRFA? No. We need some process that actually can make an impartial decision, but still carry out the community's wishes in consensus. That's what CCD is! I'm trying to make a process that will carry out the community's wishes, not the opposite. DRFAs may very easily get its well poisoned, and an impartial outcome, fair process, will be very hard to achieve at that point. I have every reason to believe the bureaucrats try to carry out the community's wishes, but some structure is needed. We didn't have that when the whole Gryffindor desysop issue occurred. So work with me patching the loopholes. "There is no rush and that above all, dialogue and ability to compromise are key to good group work". (Taken from one of PatríciaR's comments, but I removed some parts. The principle kind of stands). I really agree with that, and I think CCD would possibly achieve that. DRFA on the other hand, no IMO. Feel free to ask for any clarification here. — Kanonkas // talk // CCD // 18:04, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I think part of the issue is that communities grow over time and the qualities people are selected for change over time. Over time dispute have and will become more complex as the Commons community grows. Proactively creating a process to scale up dispute resolution is probably a good idea. This isn't to say that the current processes aren't working, just that things are getting more complex and we should look towards new processes. MBisanz ^talk 18:13, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Exactly so, both you and K, just above. ++Lar: t/c 02:13, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Selecting the group

How exactly should the group be selected? I think if we elect some group for every possibly case, well... that just isn't going to work out so good. Thoughts? — Kanonkas // talk // e-mail // 19:23, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, could we make the selection process almost random? Have a group of (active) admins who are asked to volunteer as a jury for a month or so? I know that's a big ask, but if we are decidedly eschewing a permanent body, I can't think of anything else. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 12:43, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea, but I do have some concerns about it. However, you can say the same thing about my idea. My idea would be to let the bureaucrats be the group for now, as I possibly asked below. — Kanonkas // talk // CCD // 00:32, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Reusing the crats would oddly reduce the bureaucracy and doesn't sound like so bad of an idea. MBisanz ^talk 00:34, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

 Agree. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:01, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Time

A case is opened and people must have time to think and reflect. So they SHOULD know up front what the *minimum* time is they have. Otherwise some one comes to the page and suddenly finds the case closed. I saw 3 weeks so put that as minimum. For urgent matters of course other procedures are there (like instant removal) but here a procedure should be wit time to think and centrainty about the period. MoiraMoira (talk) 09:18, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree you do make a good point. At the same time, I don't think a time limit is good. I have an example: a case that may very well be hard, and we later find out 3 weeks just isn't enough. Which is why I'm opposed to have a hard and fast rule such as maximum or minimum time limit. Further, having a time limit may add further pressure to the group and participations. The group may also feel very pressured to make, or take hasty decisions. I don't want such things to happen. I think not having a time limit may increase potential, not just current state. However, leaving cases for a long time isn't good either, but I don't want any hasty action from this group either. — Kanonkas // talk // e-mail // 09:48, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Time limits put pressure on the people involved and are not a good idea. PeterSymonds (talk) 15:11, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Why?

Why are we modelling this after enwiki's ArbCom? Why do we need this at all? What problems does the current method have, and how would this solve those problems?  — Mike.lifeguard 19:53, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

1. It's being modelled from various processes as far as I know, and is still under the process of being worked on. Which is why some points may look a bit weird, and may need fixing.
2. At this point we have no official dispute resolution process. Commons is growing, and so does the disputes. In a summary: disputes are evolving, and are getting bigger. Most of the bigger disputes simply aren't appropriate to have at the administrators' noticeboard. The disputes needs to be handled somewhere else, but where? That's where CCD most likely will come in. Those disputes will most likely be appropriate at CCD, and possibly be resolved.
3. What method do we exactly have? Apart from our noticeboards, or talk pages? I think we need something binding, and a process such as this one may be able to help to resolve disputes. — Kanonkas // talk // CCD // 20:20, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, that doesn't explain what is wrong with our current ad hoc methods, nor how a "binding" "process... to resolve disputes" will make any difference. Throwing buzzwords around does not make a convincing argument -- you need to show what is wrong right now before we can consider solving the problems. Until that's done, I have to assume there are no problems, making this a rather inadvisable solution in search of a problem.  — Mike.lifeguard 23:03, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Mike. In the words of a en.wp editor, it's processcruft. Maybe we can use a little more structure in current methods; refining/improving those would be better than adding a whole new process on top of it (which will create it's own problems, so we'll add something on top of that, ad infinitum; creating new processes is always more fun than reforming current ones, but it's not always the best solution). Anything that resembles ArbCom, we should stay far far away from. Community decides, not some "authorised body". Bureaucrats are there to focus discussion and determine when that consensus has been reached. "Binding" is simply what sticks. "Non-binding" is not necessarily a bad thing. All this is doing is adding another level of authority with no clear benefit (as similar things on other projects has shown). And honestly, I don't think it mixes well with the Commons way. Rocket000 (talk) 01:08, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Where is our current dispute resolution, or are you referring to something else? I keep missing what exactly is our "structure of methods". Can you please elaborate further? A new process doesn't necessary need to create problems, same with improving it. I have to ask though, what is so wrong with a new process such as this one? Are we afraid of bureaucracy, or the failures en.wp have made at times with these "authorities"? Usually it isn't the process' fault for these failures, rather the ones running the process at times, from my experience. Fearing something based on past experience at some wiki, such as en.wp just isn't going to work, in most cases, but can be taken into account. The English Wikipedia is huge compared to this project. You simply can't make everybody happy with though decisions, same with the people running it. One do the best of what one have, really. At this point AN, and it's subpages, talk pages, etc just can't handle it. We need some sort of dispute resolution that can try resolving the disputes that are no longer appropriate at the noticeboards/talk pages. Non-binding and with conduct problems usually don't fit together. So yes, make it stick at times. To make a binding resolution in a non-binding environment, though, one has to make a good consensus while working around unreasonableness against the obvious problem people. Which is very hard at times, but we as a community still try to do it. However, there are times where I find binding decisions necessary related to conduct/disputes. Simply making a non-binding "result" usually work, but not on problematic editors at times. Which is why we try to work further with them. Binding decisions are needed at times, otherwise we would get nowhere at some points. Maybe not a popular option, but a necessary one at times. Yes, the binding path will most likely raise drama. The hard path isn't easy, but necessary at times, IMO. As to the "authority" bit, well that's still not decided. See Commons:Centralised community discussion#Group for the drafted version of the "group". If you have suggestions to the "group" bit, please comment at this section. However, as I pointed above, the authority bit usually isn't the problem, it's how the group act with it's authoritative-ness" in general. Basically the people running it is the face of this process, but the process is usually fine. Just the people running it usually makes the reputation on the process itself, which I think is bad. What derives from another project doesn't necessary mean it will derive to this project, in a good or bad way. I think many will disagree, and agree. That's how it is, and these are some of my thoughts. — Kanonkas // talk // CCD // 13:06, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

You stated "At this point AN, and it's subpages, talk pages, etc just can't handle it. We need some sort of dispute resolution that can try resolving the disputes that are no longer appropriate at the noticeboards/talk pages."

However, you haven't shown that COM:AN et al Just Can't Handle It. When? Where? I haven't seen any grossly dysfunctional threads recently, or ones which are not appropriate at the noticeboards/talk pages. What do you even mean by "not appropriate at the noticeboards/talk pages"? It's just not clear what problems you're seeing, much less why this proposed "solution" will remedy those problems.  — Mike.lifeguard 19:20, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Mike, you pointed out yourself quite recently that due to a still ongoing case the health of the community is at risk and another 'crat suggested an ad-hoc decision process for it because all previous attempts at the COM:AN pages failed. I think that we need some process to handle such cases finally that are otherwise likely to endanger our community. I am myself not sure how this can be done best as I have not much experience in this area. But I appreciate Kanonkas' efforts to develop a proposal and I think we shall be open-minded enough to consider it. --AFBorchert (talk) 19:15, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

To Mike -> I mean when they're no longer appropriate at AN/talk pages, we may consider to use CCD. As the main page already state, see Commons:Centralised community discussion#Requirements for more details. The disputes don't necessary need to be "recent", but we or I, need to show why exactly a procedure, such as this one, should be implemented. Which I think I have done above. Do some digging through the AN archives, and I'm sure you'll find some examples.

Though, I've done the courtesy to find some examples myself. Here are some examples that springs to my mind:

1. The Carlos Latuff issues. (E.g. such as the categorization, and the behaviour from some of the parties (if it's still a concern)). Andreas makes a good point, see above.
2. Conduct of some users, I would rather not name any particular users, with respect to them.
3. Ethnic stuff that flares from time to time. Not saying we should use CCD for all kinds of ethnic disputes.

(Note: I didn't find all of the above examples in the AN archives.)

Please read through the post again. The information is in there, so you'll probably see it. If not, I'll explain it again. (This is in response to the remedy bit.)

As an addendum, please answer my questions above as I did with yours. — Kanonkas // talk // CCD // 20:39, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't see any questions that aren't rhetorical. If I'm wrong, please point them out.

As for your examples, I don't see that those have spiralled out of control; nor do I see that this proposed solution would be helpful. In response to AFBorchert, I am being open-minded - that's why I'm asking for clarification regarding the thinking behind the proposal. Otherwise, I'd simply ignore it. I think the developments at Commons:Categories for discussion/Current requests/2009/06/Carlos Latuff actually show that ad hoc decision making (including non-binding peer mediation) can work. That it is difficult is unquestioned, but that is beside the point.  — Mike.lifeguard 23:50, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Mike, the process suggested for this case, once accepted by both parties and the community, is binding and not just a mediation. To me this is surprisingly similar to the process proposed by Kanonkas. If this process is successful, it will surely set a precedent. --AFBorchert (talk) 06:23, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, that's why I think it's a bad idea, and why it's even more important now than several days ago that the conflict be de-escalated and mediated instead.  — Mike.lifeguard 17:37, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

But it didn't. We're running an ad-hoc process at this point. How exactly would we get an mediator so quickly, and how can that mediator deal with all big disputes such as Latuff? It isn't possible when we use our ad-hoc process, but it may work in the principle. Some sort of structure, and process, such as this one, is needed. How long are we supposed to be thinking what to do with every big dispute we get? We need some dispute resolution process before we're at the end, and see drastic ad-hoc proposed resolutions, such as MichaelMaggs did here. Basically if we're going to have to think "out of the box" every time we get an issue such as Latuff, we're going to have major problems in the future. I find this proposal to be worthy at least a consideration, and we need some sort of a dispute resolution process. Not just an ad-hoc "surprising" processes, which not only can be confusing, but may do even more harm. In the long run, it simply won't work. Commons is a large community at this point, we can't ignore that fact. Disputes are evolving.... AN keep failing... what to do? I find myself partially agreeing with MBisanz's comment above (diff). I've talked to some mediators, and they are positive for this proposal, espescially about the binding bit. As I've noted above in my comments, how the process will run is unknown for now.

I see some of the similarity between the ad-hoc proposed resolution by MichaelMaggs and CCD. But at the same time I see it's most similar to RFC. It's not that similiar to arbitration. It's in the middle. It's not RFC, and not arbitration. Is it because of CCD's process section? If not, please explain. However, I'll give some of my own ideas why some may think so.

1. First of all, CCD is the last stage for all disputes, for ”now”. That is not to say this is the final stage of dispute resolution. We've got to start somewhere, and that is by getting CCD as an official dispute resolution process. We can then focus on a last stage dispute resolution, if necessary. CCD is not ”'ArbCom”', and is not supposed to be arbitration either. Please don't label it as such either without giving a further explanation.
2. The process bit is still being drafted, and so is the whole draft. Come up with problems, if there are some, but please give some ideas too.
3. Ability to remove rights - yes, now this one may be contentious. However it's supposed to let the ”community” voice their concerns about user X's administrator/bureaucrat rights. Which is just some factors to why we should have CCD. Secondly it's not some popularity vote. I think Commons:Centralised community discussion#Removal of rights is pretty fair. Who the "group" is, is unknown at this point. How they even get selected is unknown too. As many seems to say bureaucrats are the ones that should gauge consensus (which they are supposed to do too), let them be the group? I should have brought this up at #Selecting the group, and I urge others to comment at that section too, if one is concerned, or wants to give some ideas on how we should proceed on the whole selecting the group bit. Are there other supposed factors that make this similar to arbitration/ArbCom? — Kanonkas // talk // CCD // 15:30, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I just don't see any justification for it. And it isn't a matter of not fixing something that's not broken. I don't believe in that; I'll fix something that's not broken anyway if I wanted to (this is a hobby after all). But in this case, it's not something I would enjoy, and even if I didn't take part in it, it would change the general laid-back atmosphere here on Commons. Rocket000 (talk) 12:34, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

 Oppose - no no no no no no no no no. No. No! No no no no no. No. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:13, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

No. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:13, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

No. No. No. No. No. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:13, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I see no reason why we need this. We do NOT want to be en.wp, most people here joined Commons to get away from that crap. These things are unnecessary, and don't work anyway. We have COM:AN for this sort of thing, let's leave it at that to avoid creating another unused notice board that no one ever bothers to look at. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:13, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

That was unnecessary Matt. I and others have argued why this is necessary, but that comment of yours isn't actually helping the developments being made here. — Kanonkas // talk // CCD // 22:24, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

So...

What now? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:57, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm still thinking what we should do with this part. I don't think it should only consist of bureaucrats. — Kanonkas // talk // e-mail // 22:21, 3 October 2009 (UTC)