>I think the way you hold power in your own hands it that you, who are in contact with >the problem, can initiate the conflict resolution
>procedure, beginning with talking to the party, asking for mediation, then arbitration.
I think you did not understand me Fred.
Me : I am not sportive, so I avoid steps the most I can. I prefer talking to avoid having steps to climb, at the risk of having my opponents (sorry, the other friendly contributors) drop the matter by tiredness. But...I know of the steps, if needed, I know where to go. And knowing where to go, I can also voluntarily decide not to go, and to use another path.
But "me" is not what matters here. I think some wikipedians do not even know about these steps. Or they heard about them, but they do not know how the steps are supposed to be climbed. I might just go as far as saying they are not convinced the right way is to climb the steps.
Right now, when some users complain about something, and ask the committee to do something, they see that nothing is going on. Because it is still in the process of being set, and because things take time, must take time. But still, they wonder. And sometimes, when they ask, they are answered that they should take care of the matter themselves.
On the other hand, other users decide to act themselves, and then are told they have no legitimacy to do so. Only the committee has.
You may turn it the way you want, it is unclear for people, what they are supposed to do.
There is one thing I fear, is that from now on (well, when the committee works), people will try less to resolve matters themselves, they will try to hand it to you, and they will not even know what will lead to the decision. I fear procedures.
Having power is not having the power to ask other people to resolve conflicts for us, having power is having the right to do it ourselves.
Yeah, this is getting too procedural.
If someone is seriously bugging you, start a poll for a 24 hours, or a week banning, advertise it. If the poll shows that 80% of people strongly agree, ban the guy while the committee is working on him, and that is it.
Take it as a worry from someone editing in a wild west wikipedia, where no Benevolent King and no committee decides :-)
>The arbitration committee (who if they are careful, are not in contact with the situation, >at least not slugging it out) can if a case comes to us,
>rather rapidly decide a matter and prescribe a remedy. (A week or two is very rapid >indeed in this context, even hasty).
>Fred Bauder, member of the arbitration committee
Very true.
Well, I am not sure a mediator should be in contact with the situation either; nor that he should explicitely look for conflicts.
Perhaps is it time to discuss which information can be offered from mediation to arbitration.
I have no memory of that ever to be discussed.
Should we offer a sort of a report to arbitration ?
Or nothing at all ?
Have you discussed the matter together ?
Anthere, member of the mediation committee (geeee, that sounds unecessary serious, but obviously, you did not understand where I was coming from, so...)