From: "Jimmy Wales" jwales@joey.bomis.com I think that Erik's suggestions here have great merit, and I'd like to open the floor to a discussion. Obviously, he's given a fair amount of detail, and I may not want to adopt all of the detail that he's suggested, but I think in broad outline we're going to have to move to something like this.
--Jimbo
Erik Moeller wrote:
Jimmy-
that email address and using the "Email this user" feature, how about [[User:Mediator]]?). Right now, it's really difficult for users to deal with insults and personal attacks.
Mediation has become a good tool for trying to resolve disputes. E-bay has an online mediation service. I was thinking that the submission standards which I drafted (I previously posted the URL here and at Wikitech about Mav's suggestion for updating the edit page text and linking pages) suggests not only mediation but eventually arbitration (that may be eating too much into our Fearless Leader's prerogatives).
If two users are fighting should it be open or should there by a closed mediation process? Mediation is typically confidential and only involves those directly involved in a dispute. If mediation fails the agreement between the parties (and this can all be done by agreement very easily because everything on Wikipedia is in writing) then it goes to whatever dispute resolution process is otherwise there.
The advantage of private mediation is it allows the parties to vent and get their disputes off their chests withouf the fear that somehow what they say will be used against them. The ideal is that by communicating (through a third party that is trained in conciliation and compromise) that the parties actually understand each other better.
I think this might be useful on Wikipedia because it is such a communal and cooperative environment. Of course the privacy is done is a way that there is no record, but if the mediation resolves, then there is no need for there to be a record, it is all reduced to a mediation resolution agreement and anything discussed during mediation is not recorded.
Arbitration can also be done fairly easily with very relaxed rules (the ICANN/WIPO domain name dispute policy is an example of a _very_ stripped down mediation).
In arbitration this is going to be someone who acts as an impartial decision maker. That might be Jimbo, but there could be a committee that has a few online members who have some training in this area and who are prepared to see the process through. Many arbitration proceedings also use three arbitrators. One chosen by each side and the third chosen by the two arbitrators in order to insure some kind of impartiality. They could also make a decision that could be submitted to Jimbo and he could either confirm the decision or decide to grant the user clemency in his discretion as our personal Lord and Master. (Hear ye, hear ye, the Court of Jimbo's Bench is now is sesssion!)
Thus, when users complain about someone there could be a complaint officer (CO) whose job is to represent the complaints to the mediator or arbitrator (having a group against one person is not really fair is it?). There may also be people who volunteer to advocate for the person whose been accused of breaking Wikiquette to the point that they should be banned either temporarily or permanently. That advocate would work with the "contributor alleged to be offending" (CATBO). The process could be acheived by a secure private site (it is very important to mediation for this not to be disclosed) or maybe with a telephonic mediation session between the CABTO hiers advocate, the complaint officer (CO) and the mediator.
If they reach an agreement, i.e. we will withdraw our complaint if the user agrees to the following conditions, (i.e. no edits on the following pages for a month, no nasty accusations on user talk pages, etc. then the dispute is resolved. If they do not reach an agreement the parties prepare for the arbitration hearing. the CO prepares a complaint that lists all the alleged transgressions with links to page histories and references to the Wikiquette that has been alleged to be violated. This is a public document and they may even be a period where suggestions are submitted to the CO to amend the written complaint. (this need not be a long document, just a refactored succinct statement of all the complaints against the user).
This is deposited with Jimbo who then picks a arbitrator (different each time and maybe also by random number generator). The arbitrator is contacted and asked to serve. After that point all communications with that arbitrator must be copied to the User Advocate assigned to the case. The UA is given a deadline to respond to the written complaint. The UA discusses the choice of arbitrator with the CATBO and the CATBO can go forward with one arbitrator or three. If three, they request their arbitrator who has the power to accept or decline the appointment. Then the two arbitrators pick a third arbitrator.
Once the UA and CATBO know the arbitrator or committee they can write the response to the complaint. We might even be able to get a law school to give our UAs credit to participate in this kind of program. When I was in law school I worked as a student advocate for the University disciplinary committee.
Anyway it could be something that is easily organized with a few people and all the posts could be short term appointments. The CO could be a monthly job as could the UA. You can' also make being an arbitrator being contingent upon serving either as a CO or UA so that they are There could also be a list of UAs and it is up to the CATBO to contact the UAs and convince them to enter into the volunteer representation. (I would consider this pro bono, in the US all lawyers are asked to do at least 50 hours pro bono a year for the community).
This is really a very simplified version of the commercial or international arbitration programs of the American Arbitration Association (see www.adr.org) Most arbitration and mediation programs have similar structures. If the person wants to represent themselves without an advocate, they can do that, but there should be someone who represents the complaints by other users of Wikiquette violations, I stress that strongly.
I think one big problem now is that someone who is accused feels like everyone is ganging up on him or her. Being in such a defensive position can make one act irrationally. If all the allegations are channeled through one person and if the person who is accused has someone impartial to talk to about it the debate should be more rational and reasoned.
This whole thing may sound very complex, but in practice it will not be. The mediation procedure can be implimented with one or a few volunteer mediators. The whole arbitration procedure can be implemented with 6 COs (everyone volunteers to work on that committee for two months a year) 6 arbitrators and a few UA, so we are talking about 12-15 people tops giving on the average a few hours a week. There are people who might consider contributing to such a process here. We have at least 6 lawyer members who we could probably convince to volunteer once and a while and there must be a few social workers, psychologists or philosophy types who could play a role. some of these positions could even be voted upon. Vote for Anthere for Arbitrator! or, Angela for User Advoate in 2004! Erik for Complaint Committee, etc. Little Dan for Mediator of the Month! (yes L'Dan you are old enough to be a mediator, in the NYS school system they have a peer mediation program where HS students mediate disputes between students to resolve problems between students).
The advantage of creating such a type procedure is that it would calm things down and once people complained the process would not consume everyone's time the way it is doing now.
Jimbo would still have his foothold [[royal prerogative]] which he could use for temporary restraining bans or in extreme cases where the CATBO is engaging in serious destructive activity. he could also be appealed to to overturn a particularly harsh decision by the arbitrators or unbanning (like [[clemency]]. T the whole process shouldn't take any longer than the amount of time that goes into discussing these issues right now, so it takes about a month or something before the decision about a ban (or lifting a temp ban) comes down.
Anyway, this is just another legal beagle suggestion, and as usual it is not "legal" advice, just a suggestion.
Alex756