Let's review where the Mediation/Arbitration system currently stands in practice:
*The genuine custom for mediation is somewhere between zero and zip.
*Mediation is requested as a method of trolling. So far only once successfully.
*Mediation is requested and once it starts, one or both of the disputants will insist on behaving as if it were arbitration. (This has happened more than once, but which cases, I will not disclose)
*Once the Arbitration Committee set itself up, it immediately dropped even the pretense at arbitration and constituted itself as a panel of grievance hearings with independent power of adjudication.
Where do we go from here?
Well, the first thing to acknowledge is that this how it was always going to go, no matter what we might have wished. Reality is a harsh mistress.
The only logical thing to do is to rename the Arbitration Committee into something more close to what their actual role is, and rename the Mediation Committee into the Arbitration Committee, and give it live ammunition. What do I mean with live ammunition? I honestly don't know! Anything the current "socalled" Arbitration Committee can bear to part with...
J-V Heiskanen (Formerly Cimon Avaro on a pogostick - RIP)
I have some trouble understanding this. But ok, mediation doesn't work. This actually is no surprise. The reason mediation works in the real world is that going to court is a real bitch. Folks here may justifiably calculate they have little to lose and if they want to "play around" read "troll" play games really, no harm no foul.
*Once the Arbitration Committee set itself up, it immediately dropped even the pretense at arbitration and constituted itself as a panel of grievance hearings with independent power of adjudication.
That is what abitrators do, decide disputes and render judgements. Comparing us to a "panel of grievance hearings" injects a practice from labor relations which contemplates a sort of appeal to an employers. I wonder what you thought arbitration was supposed to amount to.
The only logical thing to do is to rename the Arbitration Committee into something more close to what their actual role is, and rename the Mediation Committee into the Arbitration Committee, and give it live ammunition. What do I mean with live ammunition? I honestly don't know! Anything the current "so-called" Arbitration Committee can bear to part with...
Ok, Maybe you want them to be able to impose short bans, protect pages... What?
Fred
From: Jussi-Ville Heiskanen jheiskan@welho.com Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: 10 Mar 2004 16:48:42 +0200 To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: [WikiEN-l] Root and Branch - it's the only way.
Let's review where the Mediation/Arbitration system currently stands in practice:
*The genuine custom for mediation is somewhere between zero and zip. *Mediation is requested as a method of trolling. So far only once successfully.
*Mediation is requested and once it starts, one or both of the disputants will insist on behaving as if it were arbitration. (This has happened more than once, but which cases, I will not disclose)
*Once the Arbitration Committee set itself up, it immediately dropped even the pretense at arbitration and constituted itself as a panel of grievance hearings with independent power of adjudication.
Where do we go from here?
Well, the first thing to acknowledge is that this how it was always going to go, no matter what we might have wished. Reality is a harsh mistress.
The only logical thing to do is to rename the Arbitration Committee into something more close to what their actual role is, and rename the Mediation Committee into the Arbitration Committee, and give it live ammunition. What do I mean with live ammunition? I honestly don't know! Anything the current "socalled" Arbitration Committee can bear to part with...
J-V Heiskanen (Formerly Cimon Avaro on a pogostick - RIP) _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Fred Bauder a écrit:
The only logical thing to do is to rename the Arbitration Committee into something more close to what their actual role is, and rename the Mediation Committee into the Arbitration Committee, and give it live ammunition. What do I mean with live ammunition? I honestly don't know! Anything the current "so-called" Arbitration Committee canbear to part with...
Ok, Maybe you want them to be able to impose short bans, protect pages... What?
3 days ago, I imposed a virtual protection on the top of DNA page. It was meant to protect the page from a new edit war, while letting most of it editable. And to insure people would talk about it rather than edit the article again. I soft ban one user who did not respect that virtual protection
I felt GREAT !
Because I felt something was possibly do-able in that direction. And that *I* could do something about it. Not just wait for nothing to happen.
I felt great till 5 hours later desysoped 168 quit the project.
I think this is an option to explore to fix a dispute, while limiting impact on other editors. In the end, it is a bit like a mediation (ie, trying to have people talk and discuss, online and offline) while limiting damage (by protection and banning possibilities).
(now...I am not sure...what to do next since 168 is gone...I suppose I will restore the community version and possibly, depending on the DNA editors position on the matter, I was thinking of letting a soft protection on the community version for a while longuer in case Lir or Bensaccount would feel like changing it soon...)
Ant
Anthere anthere9@yahoo.com writes:
I felt great till 5 hours later desysoped 168 quit the project.
You shouldn't feel bad.
He abused his sysop powers, you called him on it, and he threw his toys out of the pram.
That's not your problem, that's his.
While I'm generally neutral and agnostic on the whole 168 thing, I certainly agree with Gareth on this one.
Gareth Owen wrote:
Anthere anthere9@yahoo.com writes:
I felt great till 5 hours later desysoped 168 quit the project.
You shouldn't feel bad.
He abused his sysop powers, you called him on it, and he threw his toys out of the pram.
That's not your problem, that's his.
Gareth Owen "I love the wikipedia, but sometimes I get the impression that certain people on this list are very bored, and so argue about something when there's really bugger all to argue about. Edit some articles, for god's sake." -- LP
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Wed, 2004-03-10 at 17:13, Fred Bauder wrote:
I have some trouble understanding this. But ok, mediation doesn't work. This actually is no surprise. The reason mediation works in the real world is that going to court is a real bitch. Folks here may justifiably calculate they have little to lose and if they want to "play around" read "troll" play games really, no harm no foul.
*Once the Arbitration Committee set itself up, it immediately dropped even the pretense at arbitration and constituted itself as a panel of grievance hearings with independent power of adjudication.
That is what abitrators do, decide disputes and render judgements. Comparing us to a "panel of grievance hearings" injects a practice from labor relations which contemplates a sort of appeal to an employers. I wonder what you thought arbitration was supposed to amount to.
Something close to what the disputants seem to expect us mediators to deliver. A negotiation between the parties themselves but with two arbiters and an umpire to make the final call.
As far as I can see, the current arbitration process has short circuited any negotiation between the parties themselves.
The only logical thing to do is to rename the Arbitration Committee into something more close to what their actual role is, and rename the Mediation Committee into the Arbitration Committee, and give it live ammunition. What do I mean with live ammunition? I honestly don't know! Anything the current "so-called" Arbitration Committee can bear to part with...
Ok, Maybe you want them to be able to impose short bans, protect pages...
Yup. For starters..
What?
Anything that will give timely relief, but will not be so heavy as to be considered a serious sanction which previously would have been the sole prerogative of Jimbo. Basically anything that won't cause the general editorship or your operation to cry foul.
J-V Heiskanen
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen a écrit:
Ok, Maybe you want them to be able to impose short bans, protect pages...Yup. For starters..
What?Anything that will give timely relief, but will not be so heavy as to be considered a serious sanction which previously would have been the sole prerogative of Jimbo. Basically anything that won't cause the general editorship or your operation to cry foul.
J-V Heiskanen
Another suggestion...
In a mediation that took place early on, a mediator asked information about ip number of two people. He did not mean to have these publicly disclosed, but having that information apparently would have been great help for him to settle a few points in the mediation process.
He asked twice the mailing list, and never got any answer. He finally had to ask Jimbo for help By the time a developer was here and available and willing to help, the information was no more recoverable (so I understood).
I will cite some words by Jussi
Are there technical facilities besides the bulletin board that we could and should have at our disposal?
Or are there justifieable fears of misuse? Should there be a non-mediator (an arbitrator perhaps) specifically tasked with providing special technical assistance for mediators?
What do you think ?
On Wed, 2004-03-10 at 17:51, Anthere wrote:
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen a écrit:
> Ok, Maybe you want them to be able to impose short bans, protect > pages... > > > Yup. For starters.. > > What? > > > Anything that will give timely relief, but will not be so heavy as to be > considered a serious sanction which previously would have been the sole > prerogative of Jimbo. Basically anything that won't cause the general > editorship or your operation to cry foul. > > J-V Heiskanen
...snip...
I will cite some words by Jussi
"Are there technical facilities besides the bulletin board that we could and should have at our disposal?
Or are there justifieable fears of misuse? Should there be a non-mediator (an arbitrator perhaps) specifically tasked with providing special technical assistance for mediators?"
Oh, that reminds me. If the mediation committee is reconstituted into a _real_ arbitration committee (on the basis of two arbitrators per case and umpirage provided by a third chosen by the two disputant-chosen ones), it would of course mean that we too would have to be voted in/out, just like the current "judiciary committee", otherwise we should not be entrusted with powers beyond those of other admins.
J-V Heiskanen
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
Let's review where the Mediation/Arbitration system currently stands in practice:
*The genuine custom for mediation is somewhere between zero and zip.
*Mediation is requested as a method of trolling. So far only once successfully. *Mediation is requested and once it starts, one or both of the disputants will insist on behaving as if it were arbitration. (This has happened more than once, but which cases, I will not disclose)
This suggests that they don't understand what mediation is about. Perhaps each party to a mediation should receive an information page explaining what mediation is as soon as that process is initiated.
E#c
I think these remarks are insightful. It is true that as it is shaping up, the arbitration committee doesn't really do arbitration as people commonly understand that word. And people have come to view mediation as something to do for a few days, more or less meaningless.
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
Let's review where the Mediation/Arbitration system currently stands in practice:
*The genuine custom for mediation is somewhere between zero and zip.
*Mediation is requested as a method of trolling. So far only once successfully. *Mediation is requested and once it starts, one or both of the disputants will insist on behaving as if it were arbitration. (This has happened more than once, but which cases, I will not disclose)*Once the Arbitration Committee set itself up, it immediately dropped even the pretense at arbitration and constituted itself as a panel of grievance hearings with independent power of adjudication.
Where do we go from here?
Well, the first thing to acknowledge is that this how it was always going to go, no matter what we might have wished. Reality is a harsh mistress.
The only logical thing to do is to rename the Arbitration Committee into something more close to what their actual role is, and rename the Mediation Committee into the Arbitration Committee, and give it live ammunition. What do I mean with live ammunition? I honestly don't know! Anything the current "socalled" Arbitration Committee can bear to part with...
J-V Heiskanen (Formerly Cimon Avaro on a pogostick - RIP)
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Fri, 2004-03-12 at 20:39, Jimmy Wales wrote:
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
> > > Let's review where the Mediation/Arbitration system currently stands > in practice: > > *The genuine custom for mediation is somewhere between zero and zip. > > > *Mediation is requested as a method of trolling. So far only > once successfully. > > *Mediation is requested and once it starts, one or both of the > disputants will insist on behaving as if it were arbitration. > (This has happened more than once, but which cases, I will not > disclose) > > > *Once the Arbitration Committee set itself up, it immediately dropped > even the pretense at arbitration and constituted itself as a panel of > grievance hearings with independent power of adjudication. > > > Where do we go from here? > > Well, the first thing to acknowledge is that this how it was always > going to go, no matter what we might have wished. Reality is a harsh > mistress. > > The only logical thing to do is to rename the Arbitration Committee > into something more close to what their actual role is, and rename > the Mediation Committee into the Arbitration Committee, and give it > live ammunition. What do I mean with live ammunition? I honestly > don't know! Anything the current "socalled" Arbitration Committee can > bear to part with... > > J-V Heiskanen (Formerly Cimon Avaro on a pogostick - RIP)
I think these remarks are insightful. It is true that as it is shaping up, the arbitration committee doesn't really do arbitration as people commonly understand that word. And people have come to view mediation as something to do for a few days, more or less meaningless.
(BTW. You do realize that you were top-posting, and according to a different thread, should be blocked from editing Wikipedia ;^)
More seriously, I fully stand behind my evaluation of where we are presently, but stepping back have come to realize that my proposed remedy was (besides inchoate) too enthusiastic. IMO the Mediation Committee can not *yet* handle supra-administratorial powers, even minor ones. Not as it is currently constituted. Some work toward finding a general Modus Operandi for its internal functions needs to be covered first.
But one thing that (with courtesy and good will) *could* be sorted out *right now* is the relation between the Mediation Committee and the Arbitration Committee.
In my view, what we do *not* want is a situation in which communication between the committees resembles a conflation of Marx Brothers, Abbott and Costello and Franz Kafka. I *do* hope we are all agreed on that!
I know this may be a point of contention with the Arbitration Committee, but I cannot honestly see how they can reasonably oppose the following suggestion:
Please, let us invest the Mediation Committee with an explicit power of binding referral to the Arbitration Committee. No coming back to the Mediation Committee, and asking: "Did you *really* try mediation already?" If the Mediation Committee *independently* decides that Arbitration is the way to go, they can initiate it on their own say so, without the Arbitration Committee second guessing the Mediation Committee.
This would confer an implicit power on the Mediation Committee, which does not include sanction, but would be a sufficient power to perhaps make the disputants take mediation slightly more seriously. Very small changes in perception, can have major effect on the process.
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
The arbitration committee's proposed rule include votes on acceptance of cases, including cases referred by the mediation committee. At least 4 arbitrators must accept jurisdiction. Now what happens to cases not accepted... depends on the nature of the problem. For example, the complaint that Anthony started a fork, likely to be not accepted because he broke no Wikipedia or indeed Wiki rule, nothing happens. Complaints considered too trivial, again nothing, but the parties might consider negotiation or mediation. Compaints that are too much for us to deal with would go to Jimbo.
Fred
From: Jussi-Ville Heiskanen jheiskan@welho.com Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: 14 Mar 2004 14:37:58 +0200 To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Root and Branch - it's the only way.
Please, let us invest the Mediation Committee with an explicit power of binding referral to the Arbitration Committee. No coming back to the Mediation Committee, and asking: "Did you *really* try mediation already?" If the Mediation Committee *independently* decides that Arbitration is the way to go, they can initiate it on their own say so, without the Arbitration Committee second guessing the Mediation Committee.
On Sun, 2004-03-14 at 15:12, Fred Bauder wrote:
From: Jussi-Ville Heiskanen jheiskan@welho.com Please, let us invest the Mediation Committee with an explicit power of binding referral to the Arbitration Committee. No coming back to the Mediation Committee, and asking: "Did you *really* try mediation already?" If the Mediation Committee *independently* decides that Arbitration is the way to go, they can initiate it on their own say so, without the Arbitration Committee second guessing the Mediation Committee.
The arbitration committee's proposed rule include votes on acceptance of cases, including cases referred by the mediation committee. At least 4 arbitrators must accept jurisdiction. Now what happens to cases not accepted... depends on the nature of the problem. For example, the complaint that Anthony started a fork, likely to be not accepted because he broke no Wikipedia or indeed Wiki rule, nothing happens. Complaints considered too trivial, again nothing, but the parties might consider negotiation or mediation. Compaints that are too much for us to deal with would go to Jimbo.
Fred
Indeed. I am courteusly suggesting that you might review that rule, with a mind to extending the role of the Mediation Comittee as a body that can discern which cases do fall under the jurisdiction of the Arbitration Committee. If you do not accept my original suggestion (which I would regret, because I *did* think it through *quite* thoroughly; do at least consider the possibility of having an explicit bias for accepting cases referred by the Mediation Committee, perhaps accepting them *unless* some Arbiter objects, where-after it would then be subject to the ordinary "4 Arbiters to accept" rule. Or if that too is unacceptable, maybe have a lower threshold for acceptance. (Two arbiters enough to accept a case?)
What I see as a nightmare, is a situation where the Mediation Committee decides that a case is not one of theirs, and says: "Try arbitration!", whereupon the Arbitration Committee refuses to take the case, but bounces it back to mediation. which then decides that it is properly not a matter for mediation but in actual fact a case for arbitration, etc., etc., etc...
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
Such a case would require a special solution should it arise and would probably receive it. We promise to learn from experience, not to provide for any conceivable eventuality.
Fred
From: Jussi-Ville Heiskanen jheiskan@welho.com Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: 14 Mar 2004 16:02:15 +0200 To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Root and Branch - it's the only way.
What I see as a nightmare, is a situation where the Mediation Committee decides that a case is not one of theirs, and says: "Try arbitration!", whereupon the Arbitration Committee refuses to take the case, but bounces it back to mediation. which then decides that it is properly not a matter for mediation but in actual fact a case for arbitration, etc., etc., etc...
--- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen jheiskan@welho.com wrote:
Please, let us invest the Mediation Committee with an explicit power of binding referral to the Arbitration Committee...
I completely agree with Cimon. If participants in mediation have followed all the steps of the dispute resolution process, mediation has failed, and the mediation committee recommends arbitration, is there any reason the arbitrators still need to vote on whether to accept the case? Can they not trust the mediation committee to make these referrals?
The necessity to go through the additional stage of voting on acceptance of cases seems a waste of time if the mediators have already decided that arbitration is the best route for the person they are referring. I'm not saying they can't veto the referral if they really think that's best, but couldn't the default be acceptance of cases we refer to them rather than the insistence of a vote every time?
Angela.
___________________________________________________________ Yahoo! Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping" your friends today! Download Messenger Now http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com/download/index.html
Matters we feel good about rapidly receive the four votes necessary.
Fred
From: Angela sloog77@yahoo.co.uk Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Sun, 14 Mar 2004 13:54:07 +0000 (GMT) To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Root and Branch - it's the only way.
couldn't the default be acceptance of cases we refer to them rather than the insistence of a vote every time?
Angela wrote:
--- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen jheiskan@welho.com wrote:
Please, let us invest the Mediation Committee with an explicit power of binding referral to the Arbitration Committee...
I completely agree with Cimon. If participants in mediation have followed all the steps of the dispute resolution process, mediation has failed, and the mediation committee recommends arbitration, is there any reason the arbitrators still need to vote on whether to accept the case? Can they not trust the mediation committee to make these referrals?
I agree with this completely.
--Jimbo
Jimmy Wales wrote:
Angela wrote:
--- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen jheiskan@welho.com wrote:
Please, let us invest the Mediation Committee with an explicit power of binding referral to the Arbitration Committee...
I completely agree with Cimon. If participants in mediation have followed all the steps of the dispute resolution process, mediation has failed, and the mediation committee recommends arbitration, is there any reason the arbitrators still need to vote on whether to accept the case? Can they not trust the mediation committee to make these referrals?
I agree with this completely.
Although I agree in principle, there is still a need to condider the workload that the arbitrators have, and the amount of time that they have to do it.
Ec
On Mon, 2004-03-29 at 23:44, Ray Saintonge wrote:
Jimmy Wales wrote:
>Angela wrote: > >> --- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen jheiskan@welho.com wrote: >> >>>Please, let us invest the Mediation Committee with an >>>explicit power of binding referral to the Arbitration >>>Committee... >>> >>I completely agree with Cimon. If participants in >>mediation have followed all the steps of the dispute >>resolution process, mediation has failed, and the >>mediation committee recommends arbitration, is there >>any reason the arbitrators still need to vote on >>whether to accept the case? Can they not trust the >>mediation committee to make these referrals? >> > >I agree with this completely. > Although I agree in principle, there is still a need to condider the workload that the arbitrators have, and the amount of time that they have to do it.
Ec
I have continued to consider this matter, and I seriously feel that your concern is exaggerated. The only thing the arbitration committee would need to figure out, is in which form they would decide and send back a censure of a "timewasting" referral by the mediation committee.
The possibility of such a censure would in most cases stop the mediation committee from becoming an easy "rubber stamp" for any old troll. As the mediation committee is currently set up as the communal spittoon anyhow, an even moderately worded censure by the arbitration committee would necessarily carry weight, if the censure itself was not lightly given.
The arbitration committee might also decide to make a swift decision of dismissal; with the normal 6 votes needed, of course, without finding the referral by the mediation committee itself worth censure.
Or there are of course other ways to set it up... Your imagination is your limit. I trust that if the wise heads in the arbitration committee really seriously decided to take this on board, a solution that is in the interest of both the mediation committee and arbitration committees workload limitation can be worked out.
One thing that would help that, BTW, would be a regularized form of communication between the two bodies.
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen