I read you mail/proposition with interest Erik, but I have a few questions on points which are not clear to me. I ask in case I should have to ask for mediation again one day, which I do not plan on an article anyway :-)
That being said, I think nominations should be
public, >and should be voted
on, because this is really a matter where community opinion matters. We don't need consensus, but we need something very roughly like it 85-90% support). Basically like the Requests for Adminship page.
Does that mean that only those listed on the mediator list will be authorized to act as mediator, or may other people go on just as usual ?
If other people are still authorized to mediate, when (or how) is it decided that a non-registered mediator can go on, or that he should drop the matter to leave room to the official team ?
Who call the team ?
May the team (or one member of the team) be somehow "forced" onto a unwilling partisan ? What will happen if one of the opponent is not willing to see the case be handled by someone with whom he had some disagreement sooner ?
The mediation team should, in my opinion, be allowed to make *binding* decisions by consensus, and recommendations to Jimbo by majority vote.
I remember Alex explanations of the difference between mediator and arbitrator. Is not what you suggest "arbitration" ? If so, could it not have an unfavorable impact on the mediation act itself that mediation and arbitration are confused ?
Will the partisan feel confortable with the mediator if he knows this one is gonna judge him somehow, rather than just trying to improve communication with the opponents ?
This includes most of the decisions Jimbo usually makes that relate to the enforcement of Wikipedia policy through bans,
warnings >etc. But of course they should try to avoid using >these measures when possible.
So, when we will vote for mediator names, we will a bit vote in reality for those who will make banning decisions ?
I am not excited in this idea very much. I give an example : let's say I am in an edit war with someone, and Vicky comes along to try to help us both. I do not know Vicky really; Why should I feel confident with her, trying to work with her, if I know at the same time she has the power to ban me if I am relunctant to accept her proposition ?
The team
should be large enough so that some members are
always >available within a
span of 3 or 4 days.
Yes, of course. Probably available much sooner is best.
They could use a closed mailing list, mediation-l, where non-members can only post but not read. Their decisions would be posted on the appropriate talk page. Team members personally involved in a debate should recuse themselves for obvious reasons. Conflicts within the mediation team (e.g. "Person <x> makes consensus decisions impossible") should be resolved mostly internally, with Jimbo's help, and taken public if necessary.
Here, I think this is really bad. Wikipedia process should be transparent. Not hidden. It is wrong that such decisions are not public.
That an arbitration team render "justice" privately is already something I consider wrong. Judgements should be public. That this team be also a mediation team at the same time is wrong as well to my opinion. Because mediation rely first of all on trust. What you propose is not likely to generate trust I fear.
Also, Erik, you know quite well the 4 people you propose, because you and them have been there for a long time. But I fear that not only old hands are included in conflicts. Also more recent users. I have problem conceiving that a rather recent user finding himself in a conflict is told "here is your mediator, trust him, talk to him, when you have said all you wanted, if you did not agree with the opponent, he will secretely talk about the matter with some other people somewhere else, and perhaps you will be blocked by their decision". Ihmo, there is something wrong here. Also, I fear that since they will be given the right to ban people, I fear that other users will not have the "right" to give their opinion on the matter (since it will be decided on a private list).
It is a bit as if, in the way of voting for mediator to help with conflict, we will actually vote for those who will take decisions for us.
If not, I understood nothing of your proposition.
So there you have it -- an actual plan that can be implemented within days. All it needs is some kind of official go-ahead, and we can start voting/discussing who we want to put in those seats.
I >wonder if anyone
actually reads my mails this far or if I could just write gibberish at this point. The quick brown fox jumped over the
yellow >chicken and
caused a warp core breach in the process.
Changing the power structure in a matter of days ? Is not that a bit quick ?
I think there are *very* good points in the way you laid out the needs; people suggested are good. But I think the idea of moving toward a structure where 4/5 people hold power while others do not, and where decisions are taken with no transparency is not.
Cordially,
Regards
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree