Sascha said in part:
Also, I'm not quite sure whether the framework of mediation/arbitration is
the
correct one. Allow me to demonstrate by way of analogy to the legal system
of
most "western" countries:
There is a difference between a criminal and a civil trial. If certain
laws of
a society are broken, then the state will prosecute a case. If, on the
other
hand there is some squabble between two parties (eg. a contract dispute), then one party will seek to prosecute the other. I submit that the problem with MNH is of the former kind. It is not primarily a dispute between him
and
me. Or for that matter all the other people he has attacked. Rather, he is
in
violation of one of wikipedia's important rules: no personal attacks. I therefore think that I should not be the prosecution, but rather a witness for the prosecution. I'm not sure how this would work with the current framework. But I'd be most interrested in everyone's opinion on this
matter.
This analogy does /not/ work for mediation. IMO a better analogy would be of marriage guidance counselling. The idea is not to decide who is wrong, or to make judgements between "complainants" and "problem users" but to help those in disagreement to find mutually satisfactory solutions. If it comes down to a situation where there can't be an agreement then sadly it's time to decide whether divorce is necessary.
This situation is one where Anthere's comments about mediation between personalities rather than mediating only on specific article disputes applies. I'm still thinking about that - I think she is right in that problems are more often about personal differences than really about article text and so on, but am not sure how mediation can effectively help. Especially when we have such limited means - if we could all get together physically (especially with a few pints ;) then maybe we could make a difference in personal conflicts, but with the limited means we have I'm not sure how effective we will be. (that doesn't mean we shouldn't try of course)
Regards,
sannse