Risker wrote:
It's on the arbcom-L private mailing list, I suspect, Steve. A link won't
be possible, sorry.
Yes I knew that. I was simply making an obverse point about the mis-usage of
"private" lists for sweeping public project announcements.
In any case, I try to avoid closed-source technology wherever I can.
-Stevertigo
As far as I know, it wasn't an announcement, it was sending up a trial balloon amongst a known group who was likely to critique it honestly but fairly, before taking it public. Strikes me that happens all the time, and doesn't necessarily have to involve foundation-related lists but could be any group of people.
Risker
2009/6/27 stevertigo stvrtg@gmail.com
Risker wrote:
It's on the arbcom-L private mailing list, I suspect, Steve. A link won't
be possible, sorry.
Yes I knew that. I was simply making an obverse point about the mis-usage of
"private" lists for sweeping public project announcements.
In any case, I try to avoid closed-source technology wherever I can.
-Stevertigo _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
As far as I know, it wasn't an announcement, it was sending up a trial balloon amongst a known group who was likely to critique it honestly but fairly, before taking it public. Strikes me that happens all the time, and doesn't necessarily have to involve foundation-related lists but could be any group of people.
Risker
There wasn't anything wrong with what was done; the problem was a running sore and had been repeatedly discussed.
Fred
On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 11:17 AM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
2009/6/27 stevertigo stvrtg@gmail.com
Yes I knew that. I was simply making an obverse point about the mis-usage of "private" lists for sweeping public project announcements. In any case, I try to avoid closed-source technology wherever I can.
As far as I know, it wasn't an announcement, it was sending up a trial balloon amongst a known group who was likely to critique it honestly but fairly, before taking it public. Strikes me that happens all the time, and doesn't necessarily have to involve foundation-related lists but could be any group of people.
Risker saith: "it wasn't an announcement, it was sending up a trial balloon amongst a known >group who was likely to critique it honestly but fairly"
Hm. Strikes me that a public group can critique things quite "honestly but fairly" also. I mean, that's how this list works isn't it? Otherwise I would never submit ideas here at all.
Risker spoketh: "Strikes me that happens all the time, and doesn't necessarily have to involve foundation-related lists but could be any group of people."
Hm. Don't you mean "any closed group of people"?
I mean, I'm inferring this from the context of our conversation. If, in your statement you imply, without explicitly saying so, a change in our conversational context from "closed groups" to "any groups," and I thus just did not notice this change, please accept this is a kind of backhanded apology.
-Stevertigo
On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 2:01 PM, stevertigo stvrtg@gmail.com wrote:
please accept this is* a kind of ...
as*
-Stevertigo
You know, we don't really *need* everybody's agreement to create the mailing list. If an editor is interested is genuinely interested in setting up DR-en-l (ugh, the abbreviations begin...), they are free to file a request with a developer over bugzilla or over IRC. Those that wish to may join. Time will prove who is correct: those that say the list is a good idea, or a bad one. Let's be proactive - rather than bicker and debate endlessly (in the exhaustive yet courteous manner that only Wikipedians are able to). Respectfully, AGK
AGK wrote:
Let's be proactive - rather than bicker and debate endlessly (in the exhaustive yet courteous manner that only Wikipedians are able to).
You know, it doesn't actually help people to be thoughtful to label discussion "bickering" because some comments are negative.
I happen to disagree strongly with Stevertigo's comment that "the customer is always" right in relation to dispute resolution. If that were true, terms like "wikilawyer" and "vexatious litigant" would be redundant in our context. And they are not. Anyone who really advocates for the opening of another front in dispute resolution had better take into account the way our mechanisms become, for some of our "customers", mere instruments or means to their ends. The point is not to be "proactive" for the sake of activity, but to forward the mission. Just wait until DR-en is subject to a barrage of "evidence" not admissible in onsite terms, but said to be crucial to someone's view of matters.
Charles
On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 2:36 PM, Charles Matthews
I happen to disagree strongly with Stevertigo's comment that "the customer is always" right in relation to dispute resolution. If that were true, terms like "wikilawyer" and "vexatious litigant" would be redundant in our context. And they are not.
The Arbcom's definition for "wikilawyering"? Can you show us an Arbcom case where "wikilawyering" was a finding?
Anyone who really advocates for the opening of another front in dispute resolution had better take into account the way our mechanisms become, for some of our "customers", mere instruments or means to their ends. The point is not to be "proactive" for the sake of activity, but to forward the mission. Just wait until DR-en is subject to a barrage of "evidence" not admissible in onsite terms, but said to be crucial to someone's view of matters.
Hm. Interesting points for the dres-en mailing list, Charles.
-Stevertigo
The Arbcom's definition for "wikilawyering"? Can you show us an Arbcom case where "wikilawyering" was a finding?
Sure, and it's a classic:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Benjamin_Gat...
Fred
AGK wrote:
Let's be proactive - rather than bicker and debate endlessly (in the exhaustive yet courteous manner that only Wikipedians are able to).
You know, it doesn't actually help people to be thoughtful to label discussion "bickering" because some comments are negative.
I happen to disagree strongly with Stevertigo's comment that "the customer is always" right in relation to dispute resolution. If that were true, terms like "wikilawyer" and "vexatious litigant" would be redundant in our context. And they are not. Anyone who really advocates for the opening of another front in dispute resolution had better take into account the way our mechanisms become, for some of our "customers", mere instruments or means to their ends. The point is not to be "proactive" for the sake of activity, but to forward the mission. Just wait until DR-en is subject to a barrage of "evidence" not admissible in onsite terms, but said to be crucial to someone's view of matters.
Charles
It's time to introduce the hoi polloi to the crushing burdens born by the arbitration committee.
Fred
You know, it doesn't actually help people to be thoughtful to label discussion "bickering" because some comments are negative.
I agree, Charles. "Bicker" was poor word choice on my part. The comments of everybody have been quite constructive, and I was not my intention to dismiss anybody's comments (most especially when such a dismissal would be on the grounds that their comments were not in line with my school of thought).
I would echo my suggestion (with the exception of "bickering" ;-)) that a proactive approach is needed to break what seems to be the intractability of this disagreement. Assessing whether this proposal is successful (i.e., whether it becomes a useful tool) would be most effectively undertaken by actually implementing it and setting it on a trial run.
AGK
AGK wrote:
I would echo my suggestion (with the exception of "bickering" ;-)) that a proactive approach is needed to break what seems to be the intractability of this disagreement. Assessing whether this proposal is successful (i.e., whether it becomes a useful tool) would be most effectively undertaken by actually implementing it and setting it on a trial run.
I do find your approach to be a paradox, if not necessarily worthy of Wilde. "We are all entangled in threaded discussion, but some of us are thinking of setting up _a new mailing list_."
Charles
On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 2:12 PM, AGK wikiagk@googlemail.com wrote:
You know, we don't really *need* everybody's agreement to create the mailing list. If an editor is interested is genuinely interested in setting up DR-en-l (ugh, the abbreviations begin...), they are free to file a request with a developer over bugzilla or over IRC. Those that wish to may join. Time will prove who is correct: those that say the list is a good idea, or a bad one. Let's be proactive - rather than bicker and debate endlessly (in the exhaustive yet courteous manner that only Wikipedians are able to). Respectfully,
Hm. Well, as for myself, I was striving for unanimity.
-Stevertigo
2009/6/27 stevertigo stvrtg@gmail.com:
Hm. Well, as for myself, I was striving for unanimity.
You won't get it. Dispute resolution is too controversial a topic for that. You might manage consensus on some fairly minor proposals, but I can't see unanimity happening for anything non-trivial.
On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 2:41 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.comwrote:
2009/6/27 stevertigo stvrtg@gmail.com:
Hm. Well, as for myself, I was striving for unanimity.
You won't get it. Dispute resolution is too controversial a topic for that. You might manage consensus on some fairly minor proposals, but I can't see unanimity happening for anything non-trivial.
Well we can count on your support at least. That's called progress, in my humble opinion.
-Stevertigo
2009/6/27 stevertigo stvrtg@gmail.com:
On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 2:41 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.comwrote:
2009/6/27 stevertigo stvrtg@gmail.com:
Hm. Well, as for myself, I was striving for unanimity.
You won't get it. Dispute resolution is too controversial a topic for that. You might manage consensus on some fairly minor proposals, but I can't see unanimity happening for anything non-trivial.
Well we can count on your support at least. That's called progress, in my humble opinion.
No, you can't. I don't support any proposal for a new mailing list for dispute resolution. However, I won't object to one for discussion *about* DR (that's the difference between consensus and unaminity - for consensus you just need people to not object, for unanimity you need their support). I do object to a mailing list where DR is actually intended to happen.
Just to add my voice in the conversation...
I also don't think it's a good idea to have a mailing list to have dispute resolution to happen. Too much can happen. People will be unable or unwilling to join, etc. *About* resolution is another matter--I have no opinion about that.
I also find it kind of ironic that a discussion about dispute resolution will cause a dispute.
Emily On Jun 27, 2009, at 4:45 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
2009/6/27 stevertigo stvrtg@gmail.com:
On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 2:41 PM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton@gmail.com
wrote:
2009/6/27 stevertigo stvrtg@gmail.com:
Hm. Well, as for myself, I was striving for unanimity.
You won't get it. Dispute resolution is too controversial a topic for that. You might manage consensus on some fairly minor proposals, but I can't see unanimity happening for anything non-trivial.
Well we can count on your support at least. That's called progress, in my humble opinion.
No, you can't. I don't support any proposal for a new mailing list for dispute resolution. However, I won't object to one for discussion *about* DR (that's the difference between consensus and unaminity - for consensus you just need people to not object, for unanimity you need their support). I do object to a mailing list where DR is actually intended to happen.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 2:49 PM, Emily Monroe bluecaliocean@me.com wrote:
Just to add my voice in the conversation...
We usually employ the idiom "two cents," but you are right - "voice [to] the conversation" is formal and probably translates quite well. "Adding my two rupees.." probably doesn't mean anything.
I also don't think it's a good idea to have a mailing list to have
dispute resolution to happen.
*About* resolution is another matter--I have no opinion about that.
Think of it like a patch of sky (mailing list) where the eagles (helpers) could see things better (overview): They would still have to fly down to Earth (wiki) to do their hunting (dispute resolution).
We can also discuss dispute resolution issues in general, though there are probably a few yokels who think dispute resolution is perfect and thus doesn't need improvement, and thus think discussion about its improvement is unnecessary.
If you are already a bit familiar with our DR process(es), you might understand there are general issues that need to be dealt with.
Too much can happen.
Ah. But could you please clarify what specifically you mean by the terms "too much" and "can happen"?
People will be unable or unwilling to join, etc.
Well I agree there is a little technical issue here, and this is a criticism Ive had of IRC for a long time; that it exposes people's IPs and therefore they might not want to participate. Not everyone wants to show their emails. But we can set up a way to submit emails to the list through the wiki. A "dres-l" user account has just been set up on the wiki. I can set it up to forward any messages to the "dres-l" list, I think. IIRC the form masks the email address, but shows the username.
I also find it kind of ironic that a discussion about dispute resolution will cause a dispute.
The word is "iconic." Not "ironic." "Ironic" would be if George Takei came back from the dead to edit his article, and we banned him for lack of reliable sources.
-Stevertigo
Emily Monroe bluecaliocean@me.com wrote:
Too much can happen.
Stevertigo stvrtg@gmail.com wrote:
Ah. But could you please clarify what specifically you mean by the terms
"too much"
and "can happen"?
Note: For some reason, in my previous post, Emilys statement above was shown unthreaded in the pipermail display, making it look like I said "too much can happen" On my Gmail it looks fine. Dunno why.
-Stevertigo
On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 11:37 AM, stevertigo stvrtg@gmail.com wrote:
A "dres-l" user account has just been set up on the wiki. I can set it up to forward any messages to the "dres-l" list, I think.
This is not actually true. Apparently dres-l is too close to someone's username. The account is user:dres-list. Will set up as needed.
-Stevertigo
We usually employ the idiom "two cents," but you are right - "voice [to] the conversation" is formal and probably translates quite well. "Adding my two rupees.." probably doesn't mean anything.
I like formality--plus I tend not to use idioms online. Even in an English forum, we'll have people who don't read English well, or who can't interpret metamorphic speech very well.
Ah. But could you please clarify what specifically you mean by the terms "too much" and "can happen"?
"Too much can happen"=What I've already said, actually. I've read a little in the arbcom archives, and know people sometimes won't participate in their own RfC, or won't comply with whatever consensus there is (that was achieved through DR). If people won't participate/ cooperate with something most definitely *on wiki*, why would they participate on something that talks about Wikipedia?
Emily
On Jun 28, 2009, at 1:37 PM, stevertigo wrote:
On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 2:49 PM, Emily Monroe bluecaliocean@me.com wrote:
Just to add my voice in the conversation...
We usually employ the idiom "two cents," but you are right - "voice [to] the conversation" is formal and probably translates quite well. "Adding my two rupees.." probably doesn't mean anything.
I also don't think it's a good idea to have a mailing list to have
dispute resolution to happen.
*About* resolution is another matter--I have no opinion about that.
Think of it like a patch of sky (mailing list) where the eagles (helpers) could see things better (overview): They would still have to fly down to Earth (wiki) to do their hunting (dispute resolution).
We can also discuss dispute resolution issues in general, though there are probably a few yokels who think dispute resolution is perfect and thus doesn't need improvement, and thus think discussion about its improvement is unnecessary.
If you are already a bit familiar with our DR process(es), you might understand there are general issues that need to be dealt with.
Too much can happen.
Ah. But could you please clarify what specifically you mean by the terms "too much" and "can happen"?
People will be unable or unwilling to join, etc.
Well I agree there is a little technical issue here, and this is a criticism Ive had of IRC for a long time; that it exposes people's IPs and therefore they might not want to participate. Not everyone wants to show their emails. But we can set up a way to submit emails to the list through the wiki. A "dres-l" user account has just been set up on the wiki. I can set it up to forward any messages to the "dres-l" list, I think. IIRC the form masks the email address, but shows the username.
I also find it kind of ironic that a discussion about dispute resolution will cause a dispute.
The word is "iconic." Not "ironic." "Ironic" would be if George Takei came back from the dead to edit his article, and we banned him for lack of reliable sources.
-Stevertigo _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 11:48 AM, Emily Monroe bluecaliocean@me.com wrote:
I like formality--plus I tend not to use idioms online. Even in an English forum, we'll have people who don't read English well, or who can't interpret metamorphic speech very well.
Excellent points.
Just a little nitpick: "metamorphic" is not used in linguistics - the lingustic term is "morphological," but I understand you probably mean "idiomatic" or 'conceptually amorphous.' Interesting point, but in reality we just use the terms "informal," "idiomatic" or "colloquial" (language/speech) to deal with expressions that are not "formal," and thus more direct.
Ah. But could you please clarify what specifically you mean by the terms "too much" and "can happen"?
What I've already said, actually.
I read everything you've written here and didn't catch any specifics. That's why I asked.
I've read a little in the arbcom archives, and know people sometimes won't participate in their own RfC, or won't comply with whatever consensus there is (that was achieved through DR). If people won't participate/ cooperate with something most definitely *on wiki*, why would they participate on something that talks about Wikipedia?
Good point, Emily. Ironically enough though, Arbcom itself doesn't participate much in openly discussing its cases. Strange isn't it?
-Stevertigo
"Sunlight is the best disinfectant." - Louis Brandeis "Here comes the sun." - George Harrison
On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 12:13 PM, stevertigo stvrtg@gmail.com wrote:
Interesting point, but in reality we just use the terms "informal," "idiomatic" or "colloquial" (language/speech) to deal with expressions that are not "formal," and thus more direct.
Correction: "..not "formal" or "direct."
-Stevertigo
On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 8:13 PM, stevertigostvrtg@gmail.com wrote:
<snip>
Good point, Emily. Ironically enough though, Arbcom itself doesn't participate much in openly discussing its cases. Strange isn't it?
If you catch us in a good mood, maybe. :-)
[I'm currently one of those arbitrators, if that's a bit cryptic for some.]
More seriously, if you find the right venue and present a good case that something needs discussion or clarification, even after a case is closed, you stand a good chance of getting a reasonable level of responses eventually. The main problem, as those who are current arbitrators and those who were former arbitrators, should be able to attest, is time and the amount of stuff to deal with. Some of it is pure overload, other bits are time-management (some of us deal with simple or interesting stuff first, before tackling the difficult stuff - it's human nature really).
One of the things that has been suggested, is reviews of cases after the dust has settled. Not returning to the old discussions, but seeing how effective the remedies have been, and looking at the enforcement of cases, and whether the articles involved (if the case involved articles) have improved at all. Another aspect of review would be whether any of the policy-related stuff suggested by ArbCom principles would gain community consensus to be incorporated into polices. Technically, the principles should be interpreting existing policies, but sometimes ArbCom does strongly suggest that change is needed in a certain area. Whether that happens or not, as Fred points out, depends on the resulting community discussions. In some cases, though, those community discussions don't actually take place, and six-month reviews could point this out.
Eh. I seem to have six-month reviews on the brain for some reason.
Carcharoth
On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 12:59 PM, Carcharoth carcharothwp@googlemail.comwrote:
On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 8:13 PM, stevertigostvrtg@gmail.com wrote:
Ironically enough though, Arbcom itself doesn't participate much in
openly
discussing its cases. Strange isn't it?
If you catch us in a good mood, maybe. :-)
Hm. If Arbcom mood is the impeding issue, then anything the community can do to mitigate Arbcom caseload is naturally the first solution. Beyond that, issues related to how Arbcom members deal with stress, have to change their editing patterns, have to reconceptualize how they interact with people, etc. may require some kind of closed support group. I would not object even proposals for Wikimedia to hire cousellors for our Arbcom members from each of our various language wikis.
[I'm currently one of those arbitrators, if that's a bit cryptic for some.]
Identifying yourself as an Arbcom member might be appropriate. Something like "User:Carcharoth (Arbcom, Jan. 2009 - Dec. 2010, inactive)" would work.
More seriously, if you find the right venue and present a good case
that something needs discussion or clarification, even after a case is closed, you stand a good chance of getting a reasonable level of responses eventually.
Hm. By "right venue" do you mean arbcom-l or some IRC? Wouldn't a "dispute resolution" mailing list work well for this purpose?
The main problem, as those who are current arbitrators and those who were former arbitrators, should be able to attest, is time and the amount of stuff to deal with. Some of it is pure overload, other bits are time-management (some of us deal with simple or interesting stuff first, before tackling the difficult stuff
- it's human nature really).
Hm. Issues that we can deal with on res-l, and perhaps we can even find solutions for them. I have ideas for mitigating caseload, as I'm sure do you and others. The main issue in that aspect is just dealing with them. A closed list is not the place for brainstorming.
One of the things that has been suggested, is reviews of cases after
the dust has settled. Not returning to the old discussions, but seeing how effective the remedies have been, and looking at the enforcement of cases, and whether the articles involved (if the case involved articles) have improved at all.
Good points, though "returning to the old discussions" implies that there actually were "discussions," and that by being "old" they were also not currently relevant. There are certain very old things that remain relevant, despite what anyone says about their age. I'm sure this applies in the context of Arbcom case arguments as well.
Another aspect of review would be
whether any of the policy-related stuff suggested by ArbCom principles would gain community consensus to be incorporated into polices.
Technically, the principles should be interpreting existing policies,
but sometimes ArbCom does strongly suggest that change is needed in a
certain area.
That's like finding that a house is on fire, and at the same time telling the fire department that putting it out is optional, and subject to only whims - whims that might mathematically resemble common housecat herding patterns.
Whether that happens or not, as Fred points out, depends
on the resulting community discussions.
Isn't voting still evil?
Just like IAR is still a "pillar" of "principle?"
In some cases, though, those community discussions don't actually take place, and six-month reviews could point this out.
Six months is a long time. We should try living in the real world, instead of a shell.
-Stevertigo
Good point, Emily. Ironically enough though, Arbcom itself doesn't participate much in openly discussing its cases. Strange isn't it?
-Stevertigo
Not really, doing the work is hard enough. Additional communication is on top of that. If decisions are made privately, it would have to be copied over again to make them public. The only alternative is to engage in open discussion on the wiki. They can talk about why they don't do that.
Fred
On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 6:20 PM, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
Good point, Emily. Ironically enough though, Arbcom itself doesn't participate much in openly discussing its cases. Strange isn't it?
Not really, doing the work is hard enough. Additional communication is on top of that. If decisions are made privately, it would have to be copied over again to make them public. The only alternative is to engage in open discussion on the wiki. They can talk about why they don't do that.
Well it was Erik who finally convinced me of the superiority of open-sourced over closed-source technology. Open-source software allows for a greater degree of freedom of movement, which itself has a synergistic relationship with greater social freedom concepts in general.
So I agree with your implied meaning, that in a very short amount of time, we can make it so that no one has to buy or else deal with Microsoft's products at all.
-Stevertigo
On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 6:20 PM, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
Good point, Emily. Ironically enough though, Arbcom itself doesn't participate much in openly discussing its cases. Strange isn't it?
Not really, doing the work is hard enough. Additional communication is on top of that. If decisions are made privately, it would have to be copied over again to make them public. The only alternative is to engage in open discussion on the wiki. They can talk about why they don't do that.
Well it was Erik who finally convinced me of the superiority of open-sourced over closed-source technology. Open-source software allows for a greater degree of freedom of movement, which itself has a synergistic relationship with greater social freedom concepts in general.
So I agree with your implied meaning, that in a very short amount of time, we can make it so that no one has to buy or else deal with Microsoft's products at all.
-Stevertigo
And abandon the star chamber, absolutely not!
Fred
Just a little nitpick: "metamorphic" is not used in linguistics - the lingustic term is "morphological," but I understand you probably mean "idiomatic" or 'conceptually amorphous.'
I meant slang words, idioms, etc. Is that what you're talking about?
I read everything you've written here and didn't catch any specifics. That's why I asked.
Maybe I can't be more specific, due to inexperience. That sounds like an excuse, but still, it's the truth.
Emily On Jun 28, 2009, at 2:13 PM, stevertigo wrote:
On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 11:48 AM, Emily Monroe bluecaliocean@me.com wrote:
I like formality--plus I tend not to use idioms online. Even in an English forum, we'll have people who don't read English well, or who can't interpret metamorphic speech very well.
Excellent points.
Just a little nitpick: "metamorphic" is not used in linguistics - the lingustic term is "morphological," but I understand you probably mean "idiomatic" or 'conceptually amorphous.' Interesting point, but in reality we just use the terms "informal," "idiomatic" or "colloquial" (language/speech) to deal with expressions that are not "formal," and thus more direct.
Ah. But could you please clarify what specifically you mean by the terms "too much" and "can happen"?
What I've already said, actually.
I read everything you've written here and didn't catch any specifics. That's why I asked.
I've read a little in the arbcom archives, and know people sometimes won't participate in their own RfC, or won't comply with whatever consensus there is (that was achieved through DR). If people won't participate/ cooperate with something most definitely *on wiki*, why would they participate on something that talks about Wikipedia?
Good point, Emily. Ironically enough though, Arbcom itself doesn't participate much in openly discussing its cases. Strange isn't it?
-Stevertigo
"Sunlight is the best disinfectant." - Louis Brandeis "Here comes the sun." - George Harrison _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
If this mailing list is created, I predict an "article rescue" list will follow shortly. The fact of the matter is that anyone interested in helping out in dispute resolution already has a vast array of places to go to and to get involved. Now, if a bot was to mail out a summary from various places, that might work. But a centralised place to ask for help is likely to be overwhelmed if it ever becomes popular, and will be accused of elitism and forum shopping if people parachute in to help out.
Publicising discussions is tricky. I started a mini-how-to guide on it here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Publicising_discussions
The critical bit I think is here:
"Normal discussions do not always need large amounts of input, and a balance needs to be struck between gaining sufficient input for consensus, and overwhelming a discussion with too much input."
What I would like to see is examples of the very largest discussions and polls (e.g. ArbCom elections, polls on Flagged Revisions, the poll on the Main Page redesign, some of the large naming disputes) to the the intermediate ones (RfCs, RfAs) to the smallest ones (some dispute between two people on some obscure page in some forgotten corner of Wikipedia).
Of course, WP:3O (third opinion) was tailor-made for resolving the 'small' disputes between two people.
But I'd still like to see examples of intermediate-sized discussions, and what level of participation or publicity is appropriate there. For example - a banning discussion at ANI - how much attention and of what sort, does that receive? Compare to a ban proposal handed down in an ArbCom case. Compare policy-related discussions on ArbCom cases with discussion on (sometimes poorly-watched) policy pages, and compare again with discussions on the most widely watched policy talk pages.
As Charles said, this is a complex structure we've built here.
Carcharoth
On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 7:37 PM, stevertigostvrtg@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 2:49 PM, Emily Monroe bluecaliocean@me.com wrote:
Just to add my voice in the conversation...
We usually employ the idiom "two cents," but you are right - "voice [to] the conversation" is formal and probably translates quite well. "Adding my two rupees.." probably doesn't mean anything.
I also don't think it's a good idea to have a mailing list to have
dispute resolution to happen.
*About* resolution is another matter--I have no opinion about that.
Think of it like a patch of sky (mailing list) where the eagles (helpers) could see things better (overview): They would still have to fly down to Earth (wiki) to do their hunting (dispute resolution).
We can also discuss dispute resolution issues in general, though there are probably a few yokels who think dispute resolution is perfect and thus doesn't need improvement, and thus think discussion about its improvement is unnecessary.
If you are already a bit familiar with our DR process(es), you might understand there are general issues that need to be dealt with.
Too much can happen.
Ah. But could you please clarify what specifically you mean by the terms "too much" and "can happen"?
People will be unable or unwilling to join, etc.
Well I agree there is a little technical issue here, and this is a criticism Ive had of IRC for a long time; that it exposes people's IPs and therefore they might not want to participate. Not everyone wants to show their emails. But we can set up a way to submit emails to the list through the wiki. A "dres-l" user account has just been set up on the wiki. I can set it up to forward any messages to the "dres-l" list, I think. IIRC the form masks the email address, but shows the username.
I also find it kind of ironic that a discussion about dispute resolution will cause a dispute.
The word is "iconic." Not "ironic." "Ironic" would be if George Takei came back from the dead to edit his article, and we banned him for lack of reliable sources.
-Stevertigo _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Thomas Dalton wrote:
2009/6/27 stevertigo stvrtg@gmail.com:
On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 2:41 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.comwrote:
2009/6/27 stevertigo stvrtg@gmail.com:
Hm. Well, as for myself, I was striving for unanimity.
You won't get it. Dispute resolution is too controversial a topic for that. You might manage consensus on some fairly minor proposals, but I can't see unanimity happening for anything non-trivial.
Well we can count on your support at least. That's called progress, in my humble opinion.
No, you can't. I don't support any proposal for a new mailing list for dispute resolution. However, I won't object to one for discussion *about* DR (that's the difference between consensus and unaminity - for consensus you just need people to not object, for unanimity you need their support). I do object to a mailing list where DR is actually intended to happen.
Needs saying that "dispute resolution" is an ambiguous term. What it means in an RfC is not what it means in Arbitration. What it means in an edit war is an iterative process by which troublesome points get ironed out. What it means in Mediation is some effort to define the grounds of a dispute in personal terms. There is long-running dispute at [[humanism]] for which one solution would be to make that a dab page, and my recent contribution was to prompt the creation of [[humanism (disambiguation)]] so that we could see what such a page would look like. That dispute might need to be taken to [[Wikipedia:Mergers for discussion]], for example. About the only common factor, really, is that people in a dispute should be required to say in their own words what the content of the dispute is.
So that anywhere where people do so state their view of the actual content of an onsite dispute really is a locus of "dispute resolution".
Charles
Thomas Dalton wrote:
2009/6/27 stevertigo stvrtg@gmail.com:
On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 2:41 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.comwrote:
2009/6/27 stevertigo stvrtg@gmail.com:
Hm. Well, as for myself, I was striving for unanimity.
You won't get it. Dispute resolution is too controversial a topic for that. You might manage consensus on some fairly minor proposals, but I can't see unanimity happening for anything non-trivial.
Well we can count on your support at least. That's called progress, in my humble opinion.
No, you can't. I don't support any proposal for a new mailing list for dispute resolution. However, I won't object to one for discussion *about* DR (that's the difference between consensus and unaminity - for consensus you just need people to not object, for unanimity you need their support). I do object to a mailing list where DR is actually intended to happen.
Needs saying that "dispute resolution" is an ambiguous term. What it means in an RfC is not what it means in Arbitration. What it means in an edit war is an iterative process by which troublesome points get ironed out. What it means in Mediation is some effort to define the grounds of a dispute in personal terms. There is long-running dispute at [[humanism]] for which one solution would be to make that a dab page, and my recent contribution was to prompt the creation of [[humanism (disambiguation)]] so that we could see what such a page would look like. That dispute might need to be taken to [[Wikipedia:Mergers for discussion]], for example. About the only common factor, really, is that people in a dispute should be required to say in their own words what the content of the dispute is.
So that anywhere where people do so state their view of the actual content of an onsite dispute really is a locus of "dispute resolution".
Charles
An example of the sort of thing we might discuss on a dispute resolution mailing list.
Fred
On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 4:10 PM, Fred Bauderfredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
<snip>
An example of the sort of thing we might discuss on a dispute resolution mailing list.
Why not discuss on this list?
Carcharoth
2009/6/28 Carcharoth carcharothwp@googlemail.com:
On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 4:10 PM, Fred Bauderfredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
<snip>
An example of the sort of thing we might discuss on a dispute resolution mailing list.
Why not discuss on this list?
I agree. This list, or the village pump, would seem a perfectly adequate place for that.
On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 10:19 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.comwrote:
Why not discuss on this list?
I agree. This list, or the village pump, would seem a perfectly adequate place for that.
Because dispute resolution is broad, general, and conceptual enough to deal with separately from wikien-l, which, again, appears now largely devoted to what the Daily Mirror says about us.
And of course, the fact that people on this list will routinely bounce or bonk anyone who raises specific article issues may also be a factor in dealing with dispute resolution separately.
Wiken-l would thus be entirely free to talk about how WP looks in the media mirror.
-Stevertigo
2009/6/28 stevertigo stvrtg@gmail.com:
On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 10:19 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.comwrote:
Why not discuss on this list?
I agree. This list, or the village pump, would seem a perfectly adequate place for that.
Because dispute resolution is broad, general, and conceptual enough to deal with separately from wikien-l, which, again, appears now largely devoted to what the Daily Mirror says about us.
We talk about whatever people start threads on. If you have other discussion topics within the scope of the mailing list (like this one, for example), then start threads for them.
And of course, the fact that people on this list will routinely bounce or bonk anyone who raises specific article issues may also be a factor in dealing with dispute resolution separately.
That's because there are already plenty of places to discuss issues with specific articles. You still haven't said why a mailing list would be better than any of the existing ways.
On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 11:04 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.comwrote:
[Gossip] - We talk about whatever people start threads on. If you have other discussion topics within the scope of the mailing list (like this one, for example), then start threads for them.
[Bonk] - That's because there are already plenty of places to discuss issues with specific articles. You still haven't said why a mailing list would be better than any of the existing ways.
Because this is not a dispute resolution mailing list, as it once was. The dispute resolution mailing lists - are now closed-source.
-Stevertigo
2009/6/28 stevertigo stvrtg@gmail.com:
Because this is not a dispute resolution mailing list, as it once was. The dispute resolution mailing lists - are now closed-source.
I've been on this list for years, I don't remember it ever being a DR list.
2009/6/28 Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com:
2009/6/28 stevertigo stvrtg@gmail.com:
Because this is not a dispute resolution mailing list, as it once was. The dispute resolution mailing lists - are now closed-source.
I've been on this list for years, I don't remember it ever being a DR list.
It used to be a place to send unblock requests. These then went to unblock-en-l, which is now all but moribund.
- d.
2009/6/28 Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com:
2009/6/28 stevertigo stvrtg@gmail.com:
Because this is not a dispute resolution mailing list, as it once was. The dispute resolution mailing lists - are now closed-source.
I've been on this list for years, I don't remember it ever being a DR list.
It used to be a place to send unblock requests. These then went to unblock-en-l, which is now all but moribund.
- d.
Not really, I've been attending to it and have either unblocked or created accounts for about 50 people just this month.
Fred
On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 11:49 AM, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.netwrote:
It used to be a place to send unblock requests. These then went to unblock-en-l, which is now all but moribund.
- d.
Not really, I've been attending to it and have either unblocked or created accounts for about 50 people just this month.
Hm. I guess its a good thing for blocked people that David isn't the one watching that list.
-Stevertigo Excuse me: "Users." Not "people."
On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 11:11 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.comwrote:
2009/6/28 stevertigo stvrtg@gmail.com:
Because this is not a dispute resolution mailing list, as it once was.
The
dispute resolution mailing lists - are now closed-source.
I've been on this list for years, I don't remember it ever being a DR list.
Hm. I guess I may have been going all the way back to 2003-5. The days when Jimbo sorted everything out and blasted everyone with wikilove.
-Stevertigo
stevertigo wrote:
Hm. I guess I may have been going all the way back to 2003-5. The days when Jimbo sorted everything out and blasted everyone with wikilove.
Right. The old days, where there was some chance of coming up with right answers by kicking ideas around. Before we actually succeeded in building the most complex website ever and getting taken seriously.
Charles
stevertigo wrote:
Hm. I guess I may have been going all the way back to 2003-5. The days when Jimbo sorted everything out and blasted everyone with wikilove.
Right. The old days, where there was some chance of coming up with right answers by kicking ideas around. Before we actually succeeded in building the most complex website ever and getting taken seriously.
Charles
We can do the same thing now, if we choose to.
Fred
2009/6/28 stevertigo stvrtg@gmail.com:
Because this is not a dispute resolution mailing list, as it once was. The dispute resolution mailing lists - are now closed-source.
I've been on this list for years, I don't remember it ever being a DR list.
It is a general purpose list to discuss any matter regarding the English Wikipedia, including dispute resolution. About the only thing that will get you in real trouble is trying to discuss the content of an article, which get a "to the talk page" response.
Fred
2009/6/28 Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net:
2009/6/28 stevertigo stvrtg@gmail.com:
Because this is not a dispute resolution mailing list, as it once was. The dispute resolution mailing lists - are now closed-source.
I've been on this list for years, I don't remember it ever being a DR list.
It is a general purpose list to discuss any matter regarding the English Wikipedia, including dispute resolution. About the only thing that will get you in real trouble is trying to discuss the content of an article, which get a "to the talk page" response.
DR in the abstract is fine (that's what we're talking about now), but bringing up specific disputes usually results in being told to take it to the appropriate DR forum, whether they are content disputes or user conduct disputes or any other kind of dispute (except possibly policy disputes).
On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 4:10 PM, Fred Bauderfredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
<snip>
An example of the sort of thing we might discuss on a dispute resolution mailing list.
Why not discuss on this list?
Carcharoth
This list can take only so much discussion of dispute resolution.
Fred
2009/6/28 Charles Matthews charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com:
Needs saying that "dispute resolution" is an ambiguous term. What it means in an RfC is not what it means in Arbitration. What it means in an edit war is an iterative process by which troublesome points get ironed out. What it means in Mediation is some effort to define the grounds of a dispute in personal terms.
I don't think the term is ambiguous, it's just broad. It means the same thing in all those contexts - an attempt to end a dispute in a way that best serves the project. Different venues have different ways of achieving that, but they are all trying to do the same thing.
On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 2:45 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.comwrote:
I don't support any proposal for a new mailing list for dispute resolution. However, I won't object to one for discussion *about* DR (that's the difference between consensus and unaminity - for consensus you just need people to not object, for unanimity you need their support). I do object to a mailing list where DR is actually intended to happen.
"dres-l" (see note at bottom) will at first deal with overall dispute resolution issues, and if specific things come up, we can point them in the right direction on the wiki. We of course do not want to say that things that should be dealt at Arbcom would be handled on dren-l
I understand you are under some impression that a "dres-l" list would somehow be compromised if it dealt with specific issues. Think of it this way: Someone in a dispute on Talk:Peace about the Peace article lead could email the list (through a simple on-wiki interface, by the way), and say "I've got a problem" -- dres listers could simply point them to a specific page on Wiki, or even (gasp) help them get things done on the page itself. Maybe even helping to resolve the conflict (less work for Arbcom), or helping disputants file a compliant to formal DRR.
Keep in mind that while it makes sense to diversify certain processes (cleanup, VFD/AFD, etc.) it also makes sense to integrate those things which are too divergent and need a kind re-integration. For example, I put together the WP:DRR page (now "Dispute resolution requests) to give people an interface to all of the various dispute resolution processes. Its still a mess for the simple reason that 1) each "dispute resolution" process has its own unique rules, and submitting forms, helper templates, etc., and 2) some of them are essentially useless: "Negotiation", (huh?) "Talk pages" (eh?), Mediation Cabal (GMAB), "Wikiquette" (WTF?). And note that ANI isn't even on there. ANI is now perhaps the most central DR hub on the wiki, and its not even considered as part of DR. "Integration" is the relevant concept. Does anyone disagree that certain things along the lines of "integration" would be good for DR?
So, things need to be done to DR. The valves are knocking, the timing is off, and the temperature guage is spiking.
-Stevertigo
Note: Why not make it a general "dres-l" and let all language wikis submit?
2009/6/28 stevertigo stvrtg@gmail.com:
Note: Why not make it a general "dres-l" and let all language wikis submit?
Because multi-lingual mailing lists don't work. I don't want my inbox full of emails written in languages I don't understand.
On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 10:55 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.comwrote:
2009/6/28 stevertigo stvrtg@gmail.com:
Note: Why not make it a general "dres-l" and let all language wikis
submit?
Because multi-lingual mailing lists don't work. I don't want my inbox full of emails written in languages I don't understand.
Hm. They do work. In fact wikipedia-l was a kind of international mailing list, though in reality most people who deal with intnl issues write in English anyway.
And this is to suppose that after some short time of usage, there wouldn't be some language forking going on? Seems natural that when intl usage gets too high, maybe 18%, then we can start forking.
There is also a neat little tool now called Google Translate - I use a little toolbar button in ffox that does it in one click (much better than the extensions that try to do it all, actually). Not perfect, and not usable for certain things, but usable anyway to read things and to send terse, grammatically formal and concise messages.
-Stevertigo
2009/6/28 stevertigo stvrtg@gmail.com:
On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 10:55 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.comwrote:
2009/6/28 stevertigo stvrtg@gmail.com:
Note: Why not make it a general "dres-l" and let all language wikis
submit?
Because multi-lingual mailing lists don't work. I don't want my inbox full of emails written in languages I don't understand.
Hm. They do work. In fact wikipedia-l was a kind of international mailing list, though in reality most people who deal with intnl issues write in English anyway.
wikipedia-l is pretty much dormant. I haven't counted, but I'd guess it gets about one thread every couple of months. I hardly thing that is an example of a list that works.
David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
It used to be a place to send unblock requests. These then went to unblock-en-l, which is now all but moribund.
Well, there you go.
Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
wikipedia-l is pretty much dormant. I haven't counted, but I'd guess it gets about one thread every couple of months. I hardly thing that is an example of a list that works.
Ah, but you aren't abusing logic by ignoring the fact that each language has its own list anyway are you? My point dealt with the historical usage of wikipedia-l as the *only mailing list, and by default/convention/necessity/genius was an international mailing list. It worked out pretty well, didn't it?
-Stevertigo
2009/6/28 stevertigo stvrtg@gmail.com:
Ah, but you aren't abusing logic by ignoring the fact that each language has its own list anyway are you? My point dealt with the historical usage of wikipedia-l as the *only mailing list, and by default/convention/necessity/genius was an international mailing list. It worked out pretty well, didn't it?
I'm not sure I was subscribed to it that long ago... Was there ever a significant number of emails in languages other than English?
2009/6/28 stevertigo stvrtg@gmail.com:
Ah, but you aren't abusing logic by ignoring the fact that each language has its own list anyway are you? My point dealt with the historical usage of wikipedia-l as the *only mailing list, and by default/convention/necessity/genius was an international mailing list. It worked out pretty well, didn't it?
I'm not sure I was subscribed to it that long ago... Was there ever a significant number of emails in languages other than English?
No
Fred
On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 11:25 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.comwrote:
2009/6/28 stevertigo stvrtg@gmail.com:
Ah, but you aren't abusing logic by ignoring the fact that each language
has
its own list anyway are you? My point dealt with the historical usage of wikipedia-l as the *only mailing list, and by default/convention/necessity/genius was an international mailing list. It worked out pretty well, didn't it?
I'm not sure I was subscribed to it that long ago... Was there ever a significant number of emails in languages other than English?
No
2009/6/28 stevertigo stvrtg@gmail.com:
On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 11:25 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.comwrote:
2009/6/28 stevertigo stvrtg@gmail.com:
Ah, but you aren't abusing logic by ignoring the fact that each language
has
its own list anyway are you? My point dealt with the historical usage of wikipedia-l as the *only mailing list, and by default/convention/necessity/genius was an international mailing list. It worked out pretty well, didn't it?
I'm not sure I was subscribed to it that long ago... Was there ever a significant number of emails in languages other than English?
No
So what was your point?
On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 12:04 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.comwrote:
No
So what was your point?
Erm, I was answering.. your question.
-Stevertigo
2009/6/28 stevertigo stvrtg@gmail.com:
On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 12:04 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.comwrote:
No
So what was your point?
Erm, I was answering.. your question.
No, before that. You mentioned wikipedia-l in reference to multilingual lists being a success but wikipedia-l is neither multilingual nor a success, so I fail to see your point.
On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 12:16 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.comwrote:
No, before that. You mentioned wikipedia-l in reference to multilingual lists being a success but wikipedia-l is neither multilingual nor a success, so I fail to see your point.
You definition of "success" is admirably vague. Does "America" have to survive forever to be a "success" in promoting human freedom (such that there eventually be no more need for a particular nation called the "U.S.A") ? The defunct-ness of a thing is not an indication of its failure. Take your ancestors for example.
And yes, it was originally an international mailing list, IIRC, albeit there were few international wikis then, few people used it for such, wrote in English anyway, and in any case IIRC the first fork from wikipedia-l was en-l largely to separate the former for global wiki usage.
-Stevertigo
2009/6/28 stevertigo stvrtg@gmail.com:
On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 12:16 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.comwrote:
No, before that. You mentioned wikipedia-l in reference to multilingual lists being a success but wikipedia-l is neither multilingual nor a success, so I fail to see your point.
You definition of "success" is admirably vague. Does "America" have to survive forever to be a "success" in promoting human freedom (such that there eventually be no more need for a particular nation called the "U.S.A") ? The defunct-ness of a thing is not an indication of its failure. Take your ancestors for example.
I wasn't aware that was the stated goal of the USA, but that's not really relevant. Wikipedia-l didn't cease to be needed, it was replaced because it wasn't up to the job.
And yes, it was originally an international mailing list, IIRC, albeit there were few international wikis then, few people used it for such, wrote in English anyway, and in any case IIRC the first fork from wikipedia-l was en-l largely to separate the former for global wiki usage.
Exactly, they wrote in English because multilingual mailing lists don't work.
2009/6/28 stevertigo stvrtg@gmail.com:
On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 12:04 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.comwrote:
No
So what was your point?
Erm, I was answering.. your question.
No, before that. You mentioned wikipedia-l in reference to multilingual lists being a success but wikipedia-l is neither multilingual nor a success, so I fail to see your point.
Wikipedia-l is not a failure, just not used much any more.
Fred
Perhaps we suffer more from a superfluity of forums for discussion than a shortage of them--with the one exception of a definitive process of settling content issues., & I doubt a mailing list would work for that one. t David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG
On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 5:37 PM, stevertigostvrtg@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 2:12 PM, AGK wikiagk@googlemail.com wrote:
You know, we don't really *need* everybody's agreement to create the mailing list. If an editor is interested is genuinely interested in setting up DR-en-l (ugh, the abbreviations begin...), they are free to file a request with a developer over bugzilla or over IRC. Those that wish to may join. Time will prove who is correct: those that say the list is a good idea, or a bad one. Let's be proactive - rather than bicker and debate endlessly (in the exhaustive yet courteous manner that only Wikipedians are able to). Respectfully,
Hm. Well, as for myself, I was striving for unanimity.
-Stevertigo _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 2:41 PM, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
Perhaps we suffer more from a superfluity of forums for discussion than a shortage of them--with the one exception of a definitive process of settling content issues., & I doubt a mailing list would work for that one.
I agree that mailing lists are poor technology. They don't allow corrections, renaming, etc, logical restructuring, etc. But they do have a kind of fluidity that others do not yet have and I suppose that is why I promote this technology's usage for dispute resolution specifically. Or generally, if one views DR as a larger issue.
-Stevertigo
Perhaps we suffer more from a superfluity of forums for discussion than a shortage of them--with the one exception of a definitive process of settling content issues., & I doubt a mailing list would work for that one. t David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG
Yes, nearly every talk page and noticeboard is already a dispute resolution mechanism, way much. The list will fail unless it functions, to a certain extent, as a clearing house of significant matters.
Fred