Fred Bauder wrote:
AGK wrote:
Interpersonal disputes? Again, how is a mailing list better? and what happens when only one party joins the mailing list?
My understanding is that the list would not be a forum for dispute resolution, but rather a forum for discussion of dispute resolution (and of ongoing disputes on enwiki) - and so the problems posed by only one party to a disagreement subscribing wouldn't be a hinderance to operations on the list.
No, but don't you think it might be a hindrance to getting the dispute resolved? Which precise problem are we trying to solve here?
Charles
The idea is to have a mailing list for the general membership to discuss dispute resolution, including information about ongoing controversies. This sort of discussion already occurs on the functionaries and the arbitrators list. This list would not have a restricted membership.
I see Risker has already asked for a definition of the purpose of such a list. My feeling so far is that this is all rather [[Blind men and an elephant]]: different people come up with different aspects of dispute resolution they think could usefully be discussed on a list. Such as BLP (Fred) or any other policy matters, or overview of current activity (the Signpost already does this for Arbitration). You would undoubtedly get advocacy; would you not get canvassing? Discussion of intractable edit wars? What is and is not pseudoscience? Second-guessing appeals and clarifications? Speculation about matters in mediation? If it descends to "X is a disruptive editor so something should be done" one can expect some fairly primitive knockabout.
In my view, the problem needing a solution is to get people with an onsite dispute to use the lower tiers of dispute resolution correctly.
Charles