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(a)yahoo.com>
Reply-To: anthere9(a)yahoo.com, English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org>
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 07:49:48 +0200
To: wikien-l(a)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(a)Wikipedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l