From: "Ray Saintonge" saintonge@telus.net
Alex T. wrote:
From: "Ray Saintonge" saintonge@telus.net
...
I have no problem with this. What you quoted from me above was written before your post making the distinction between mediation and arbitration. Having someone who is representative of the accusers makes sense, but there is a potential can of worms when the accusers start arguing among themselves about who best represents their POV. :-) Identifying the accused should seldom be a problem.
My proposal always intended the two procedures to be distinct, perhaps that is clear to me in my verbosity because I know the difference and know that they are basically very distinct approaches.
I think that the accusations can be presented to someone who is chosen ( this person could be chosen by Jimbo), it should not be people arguing over who is making the complaint, there should be someone who decides if there is a complaint and then they can go forward or reject it as a minor transgression, otherwise everyone will be fighting about making allegations and taking things to arbitration. That is not a method to calm things down it we result in a lot of cross complaints of members pointing the finger at each other IMO. A somewhat unconcerned user will just review the complaints of users and then at a certain point decide to go forward. I do not think we should have a system of private prosecutions. There should be some investigative role that is played and some discretion not to bring a complaint if the users are not complaining enough about someone. Of course there should be some guidelines about this, but I trust that serious cases will get through to mediation and possibly arbitration. ...
One possibility is that the accuser and accused would each choose one of the arbitrators from the list of those available. The first two could chose the third one together, or he could be named by Jimbo. . . . or is that too cumbersome? A mediator would be disqualified from being an arbitrator in the same case.
The idea of the third arbitrator being chosen by the first two is to give the third one some impartiality. The arbitrator chosen by the accused may be pro accused, and the arbitrator chosen by the accuser may be pro banning, the idea is that as arbitrators they will have to agree on someone that they both believe they can convince. Having the third arbitrator chosen by Jimbo would reduce that appearance of legitimacy of the arbitration panel. I would either say Jimbo picks the first one and if the accused thinks that person is fair they go with one arbitrator (it is easier for one person to reach a decision usually than three) but otherwise the accused gets to pick the second one and the two arbitrators pick a third. This is well recognized in the writings about arbitration as a well established procedure for chosing an arbitration panel and it is used in practically all arbitration procedural rules. I agree that mediator and arbitrator must be distinct in a case, a mediator should never arbitrate the same case as the mediator may have information that was disclosed in the mediation session that could compromise the impartiality of the process. ...
In many of these situations we will probably need some basic rules of evidence and procedure.
True for arbitration but entirely inapplicable to mediation. It can be extremely informal because it is private. People can say whatever and be as irrational as they want. Sometimes venting like this serves a purpose in mediation (remember it is private) in arbitration the process or result is public (everyone knows the outcome).
Regarding the arbitration my proposal in short form is that the petition is drafted by one group who is authorized to present such petitions (or it can be a group of people who accept complaints from all members). Of course it would have to be specific citing specific pages, etc. There is no need for rules of evidence, everything here on Wikipedia is evidence. I cannot imagine that anything outside of Wikipedia has any relevance. There may be an issue of what constitutes vandalism on talk pages for instance or abuse of user talk pages but generally speaking the only evidence we have is the wiki and its file history. That is what makes this such a straightforward process. I cannot imagine what other documents would ever have any merit (except if the problem leaks into the talk pages but will that happen often, and even then the talk pages are also archived so it is also in writing, there is little case for these archives to be "fixed" unless some developer goes crazy or starts accepting bribes -- such a scenario is highly unlikely if technically impossible.
The procedure should be simple stuff like deadline dates and text limits, i.e. your response cannot be any longer than X characters. The decision must be rendered in Y days. We could adapt it from the adr.org rules for international arbitration or something similar (the Quebec Code of Civil Procedure has a very handy set of rules on arbitration.) There are many examples that could easily be adapted. Once some consensus about the structure of the process is achieved a few of us can refactor it and draft the necessary pages.
Also I would suggest that arbitration decisions not be based upon other arbitration decisions (there may be exceptions and there may develop a body of jurisprudence of arbitration decisions), but that definitely there should be no binding precedent. The arbitrators can but are not required to explain their decision, i.e, the decision can be we decide not to ban user:ABC. It can also be reasoned (probably better if they want a ban to be upheld by Jimbo) i.e., we decide to ban user:EFG for the following three reasons: a) b) c).
should carry a certain burden of proof. It is his obligation to cite the pages where the offences have taken place. No mediator or arbitrator should be required to look at anything other than the stated sites to help establish the accuser's case.
That is what an accusation is, and if the accusation is not sufficient the arbitrators can just dismiss the complaint and in that case I would argue that it should not be appealable by Jimbo (this gives Jimbo some distance and it means that the decision to keep a member can be made by members without any fear that the power above us will take away our compassion towards each other). ...
Illusion? Had this come from a person with poor language skills I would dismiss it as a typo. From Alex I can't be sure if the ambiguity was intended.
...Lawyer's love ambiguity, it is our stock in trade...
I'm confident that Jimbo would use his royal prerogative wisely and parsimoniously. To do otherwise would undermine the process that we are discussing.
I have no doubt that Jimbo has the best interests of Wikipedia at heart. Long live Jimbo!
Alex756