[WikiEN-l] Voting is evil (was CheckUser policy)

[Fl Celloguy]

>From: Kelly Martin <kelly.lynn.martin at gmail.com>
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Voting is evil (was CheckUser policy)
>To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at wikipedia.org>
>Message-ID:
>	<bd4c411e0511080908o221dd0c3pf49dc8752a348315 at mail.gmail.com>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
>On 11/8/05, JAY JG <jayjg at hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Mediation is intermittent at best, and (from what I can tell) almost 
>never
> > achieves a positive outcome, but that's nothing compared to RfC.
>
>Mediation is more successful than you may realize, in part because
>successful mediations often occur in relative obscurity.  A problem
>that once existed went away, without an RfC or RfAr being filed; as a
>result, only the editors involved in the dispute know about the
>mediation or the resolution, and they often don't talk much about it.

I would have to agree with that. In addition, how can you judge the 
"success" of a mediation? Two users who are in dispute are unlikely to 
become best of friends quickly. I consider any mediation successful if any 
one of the involved parties gains even an iota more respect or understanding 
of the other person, or if we have progressed, even if a tiny bit, on the 
article matter. There are so many complex issues in mediation that it is 
extremely difficult to achieve "total success". Even in the rare occasion 
that they do occur, they are not well-publicized. It is human nature to 
focus on the things that need fixing; thus, we all hear about failed 
mediations, but we rarely hear about successful ones. (Analogy - look at the 
news today. It's filled with "bad" news. However, there's plenty of "good" 
news out there; it's just not as newsworthy.)

>
>Note that I'm specifically not referring to mediation under the
>auspices of the Mediation Committee, which has, indeed, been
>notoriously unreliable.  I'm referring more to informal mediations
>conducted by a variety of informal mediators who get involved via talk
>pages, IRC, IM, email, and any number of other methods to settle
>disagreements between editors amicably.  I've done at least a dozen
>such mediations (only one since being appointed to ArbCom, though) and
>most of them have been at least moderately successful.  The more
>public ones are the ones that have failed, usually because by the time
>the dispute is loud enough to be noticeable generally, the parties are
>too pissed at one another to ever settle their dispute.  Many
>mediations merely consist of discovering an edit war and, instead of
>doling out punitive blocks (as so many admins on Wikipedia are wont to
>do), diagnosing the problem, talking to the users in question, and
>resolving the dispute.  Often it's not hard to do this, but most of
>our admins never try.  It's so much easier just to go "3RR, block
>block block".

True, the MedCom has gained a rather unfair reputation of being unreliable. 
I would note, though, that under our new chair, Redwolf24, we have 
progressed greatly. In addition, if you drop by the MedCom first, we will 
often provide you advice regarding your dispute - i.e. Redwolf24, acting on 
behalf of the MedCom, has both rejected cases and referred them to the 
ArbCom. This can often provide an opinion on your dispute - whether or not 
the dispute can be handled under the dispute resolution process or not, 
whether it should jump directly to the ArbCom or not, etc. Correct me if I'm 
wrong, Arbitrators, but you all are more likely to accept cases that have 
gone through Mediation or at least attempted mediation. In addition, if a 
mediation recommends a case to the ArbCom, policy suggests that Arbitrators 
accept it.

Thus, the MedCom can do more than mediation - we can be the starting stone 
of the dispute resolution process (besides RfCs) and can also offer a 
perspective on your dispute. Finally, as I stated above, even if the two 
parties gain an inch more of respect or understanding, I consider the 
mediation to be worthwhile and successful to an extent.

>
> > Article RfCs are numerous, and rarely attract the attention of more than 
>one
> > or two outside editors.  Frequently they attract no outside interest at 
>all.
>
>Indeed.  I've only rarely seen article RfCs attract significant
>attention.  Shameful, since articles are what Wikipedia is supposed to
>be all about.  There are too many people who are part of Wikipedia for
>the community, instead of for the encyclopedia.

The problem with article RfCs is that people probably find it boring to 
particpate in a subject area that they are not familiar with. Under the 
current system, there's little to be gained by participating, and lots to 
lose. This must be changed.

>
> > User RfCs are a mess - in theory they are a platform for addressing and
> > solving community issues.  In practice, they are often venues for 
>warring
> > camps to air grievances, and for certain notorious individuals (who feel
> > they don't get enough attention) to use as soapboxes for their own
> > speechifying (i.e. yet another "outside view").  Obvious trolling is 
>rarely
> > addressed - the complainants outline their case, and a dozen or so 
>regular
> > editors vote in support.  The troll provides a lengthy response, and 
>three
> > or four troll buddies/generall trolls/people with grievances against the
> > complainant line up and vote in support of him, or add another "outside
> > view" that has little to do with the case at hand, and is mostly about 
>their
> > own issues with the complainants.  Nothing changes, and everyone goes 
>away
> > bitter.
>
>This definitely describes several of the RfC's I've been involved in
>in some way lately.  I agree that this serves no purpose.  I'm also
>tired of hearing editors state "In my RfC my opinion got more
>endorsements than yours did, therefore I won and you must shut up."
>(Yes, I've heard things like this said.  It's stupid.)  RfC is
>emphatically not supposed to be a popularity contest, although I must
>admit it has turned into one.

True - we must remember that Wikipedia is *not* a democracy. The masses are 
often wrong, and RfCs often turn into a slinging battle of words, pitting 
one group of users against another, when both already loathe the other side 
before the RfC. In addition, it is extremely rare for a RfC to resolve a 
dispute - someone who has a RfC filed against him/her is highly unlikely to 
listen to the outcome of the RfC. After all, nothing's binding, and the 
"outcome" (i.e. "voting") is often disregarded. Thus, user RfCs are 
extremely ineffective.

>Of course, the same can be said of
>RfA/RfB.

Again, true - several RfAs (not all of them or even a majority, but a 
significant minority of them) have recently turned into slugfests, complete 
with sockpuppets, POV warriors, and whatnot. And I sympatize with you on 
your RfB- I'm sure that such a process can be very stressful.

>
>Kelly

It is clear that reform must be made in the dispute resolution process. It's 
better to do it now, rather than later. SV recently set up a page, 
[[WP:Dispute Resolution Reform]] ([[WP:DRR]]) - should we start 
consolidating discussion on one page regarding the entire dispute resolution 
process?

Thanks.

Flcelloguy
>From Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia.

_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE! 
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/