Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
If there were a way to engender a perception that the mediation process was conjunct in some real way to the arbitration committee, this would not only improve the functionality of the mediation committee, but also *potentially* effectively _restrict_ the number of cases that actually flared up to a state that can only be remedied by arbitration. "A stitch in time, saves nine!"
Before you criticize something, it would be very helpful to read the relevant documentation:
"... in most cases, the arbitration committee will only hear cases referred to them by the Mediation Committee or directly from Jimmy Wales."
"The arbitrators will accept a case if four arbitrators have voted to hear it."
From:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_policy#Requests
I for one will not vote to hear any case where I think that earlier steps in the dispute resolution process would help. I will also not vote to hear cases I think are frivolous.
But a majority vote by the mediation committee would add a great deal of weight to my decision to vote to hear a case. As would a community poll.
For me at least, requests by individuals is just so much background noise.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time. http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html
Daniel Mayer a écrit:
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote: "The arbitrators will accept a case if four arbitrators have voted to hear it."
From:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_policy#Requests
I for one will not vote to hear any case where I think that earlier steps in the dispute resolution process would help. I will also not vote to hear cases I think are frivolous.
But a majority vote by the mediation committee would add a great deal of weight to my decision to vote to hear a case. As would a community poll.
For me at least, requests by individuals is just so much background noise.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
Do you mean that if the two disputants and the mediator are asking at the same time, it is just ground noise ?
It is interesting, because it goes in the direction I was thinking of. Separation of MC and AC entirely.
Because, as it is currently happening, most cases in mediation (not all, but most really) are "person to person" cases. And indeed, it seems that the commmunity itself does not give much importance to "person to person" conflicts. It seeems the community idea is that "person to person" conflict just happen, and that it is these people business to rule out of the issue; With help or without help of any mediator. But not an issue for the AC committee.
On the other hand, most cases handled by arbitration are cases of "person to community". Ie, cases where everyone is involved, people screaming against the bad person, who must be banned/blocked/spanked whatever. In short, AC seems to accept cases that are globally hurting community, but not case to case issues...that indeed are just background noise till they do not spread to the point of hurting the whole community itself.
DO you see what I mean ?
It might be a sort of guideline, that as long as it is "person to person" with not much impact on community, then it is MC issue, and if MC fails, well, another mediator, or anyone else is welcome to help
If it is "person to community", MC committee could help, but likely, it is a AC issue. When it comes to the point of "person to community", in most cases, these are issues of trolls and vandals, not regular people.
If two disputants and their mediator request arbitration, it would be seriously considered.
The reason person versus community cases have been taken is that those are the cases Jimbo has referred to us. We stand ready to accept person versus person cases too though once we get going.
Fred
From: Anthere anthere9@yahoo.com Reply-To: anthere9@yahoo.com, English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 07:49:48 +0200 To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org Subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Qualifications for referrals to arbitration.
Daniel Mayer a écrit:
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote: "The arbitrators will accept a case if four arbitrators have voted to hear it."
From:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_policy#Requests
I for one will not vote to hear any case where I think that earlier steps in the dispute resolution process would help. I will also not vote to hear cases I think are frivolous.
But a majority vote by the mediation committee would add a great deal of weight to my decision to vote to hear a case. As would a community poll.
For me at least, requests by individuals is just so much background noise.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
Do you mean that if the two disputants and the mediator are asking at the same time, it is just ground noise ?
It is interesting, because it goes in the direction I was thinking of. Separation of MC and AC entirely.
Because, as it is currently happening, most cases in mediation (not all, but most really) are "person to person" cases. And indeed, it seems that the commmunity itself does not give much importance to "person to person" conflicts. It seeems the community idea is that "person to person" conflict just happen, and that it is these people business to rule out of the issue; With help or without help of any mediator. But not an issue for the AC committee.
On the other hand, most cases handled by arbitration are cases of "person to community". Ie, cases where everyone is involved, people screaming against the bad person, who must be banned/blocked/spanked whatever. In short, AC seems to accept cases that are globally hurting community, but not case to case issues...that indeed are just background noise till they do not spread to the point of hurting the whole community itself.
DO you see what I mean ?
It might be a sort of guideline, that as long as it is "person to person" with not much impact on community, then it is MC issue, and if MC fails, well, another mediator, or anyone else is welcome to help
If it is "person to community", MC committee could help, but likely, it is a AC issue. When it comes to the point of "person to community", in most cases, these are issues of trolls and vandals, not regular people.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Well...we are in the process of building the thing no :-) ?
We have to find the best solution...or at least the least bad...
Incidently...just because I think it is relevant to your comment Fred, 168... indicated me he wont come back
An extract
...However, I have to tell you that I'm not returning. Ultimately, it's not because of Mav or my reputation. It's mostly just that on the whole I don't see my work (my edits or my dialogues) leading to lasting contributions in an even slightly efficient or reliable way. And most often it's a source of grief instead of fun or satisfaction. In other words, it doesn't feel like a worthwhile way to spend my time even though it has introduced me to nice people like you. I wish the best for you in and outside the project...
I offer this to you for two reasons
The first is that there is *my* gratification for 6 weeks correspondance. If I consider it in the negative side, that is a failure. A failure because we lost a contributor, in great part because of Lir. And no arbitration was done on this case. And Lir is free to run wild without being bothered, and to spit on mediation just as she wishes. And that contributor, for hot headed he was, brought good contributions.
However, when he quit wikipedia, he was a resentfull and bitter man. If I did not succeed to bring him back to the project, at least he leaves with less resentment and less anger. So, I guess I did not entirely lose my time. He leaves with many regrets, but I think he leaves a bit in peace.
The second point is this one. Anyone has a right to leave anytime. But it is never good that people leave in anger. Because when they leave in anger, they can become a threat to the project. They can either become vandals and attack the project, or they can just ill-talk about it. Just expressing in public all our flaws is bad.
If we do not respect those good contributors asking for mediation and then asking for arbitration, if we refuse then this, not only do we risk loosing good contributors, but we risk making ennemies.
In front of this, bureaucracy...pouah
And finally, I dare ask what we should do when featured articles are in edit war for more than 3 months ?
Fred Bauder a écrit:
If two disputants and their mediator request arbitration, it would be seriously considered.
The reason person versus community cases have been taken is that those are the cases Jimbo has referred to us. We stand ready to accept person versus person cases too though once we get going.
Fred