I think that it is very important that the Mediation Committee be empowered to send cases to the Arbitration Committee. I understand that it is worrisome to people that the Mediation Committee could force the Arbitration Committee to take a case even if they felt it did not merit review. However, the mediation process is not being taken seriously: not only is mediation seen as something that has little to no actual effect, there are also no negative consequences for trivial requests for mediation. Mediators are being burned out and very little progress is being made, despite a couple of successes.
So in short, the Mediation Committee is currently experiencing the very thing that some members of the Arbitration Committee fear -- being compelled to take cases where there may not be a serious intent on the part of those asking for mediation. If those requesting mediation knew that requests for mediation are part of a serious process that will eventually lead to a resolution, I believe it would go a long way towards making the system work better and reducing the burden on mediators -- and NOT but transferring that burden to the Arbitration Committee.
Also, I think that -- just as the Arbitration Committee has policies about accepting cases -- the Mediation Committee should be able to set its policies about how it would decide to refer cases to Arbitration with discussion from all interested people (and polling if needed). As a member of the Mediation Committee, I can't imagine asking to have a case referred to arbitration without consulting with my colleagues, but at the same time I'm a bit apprehensive about there being some sort of requirement that the Mediation Committee have a consensus or vote about it before a case is referred to arbitration. However, I agree that there needs to be agreement between both committees -- and other Wikipedians, for that matter -- on how this would work in practice.
And just to clarify for those who aren't intimately involved in these committees, the current system is that ONLY Jimbo can refer a case to Arbitration, and then the Arbitration Committee votes on whether to accept it: "Currently, the arbitrators accept referrals from Jimbo Wales only, which they decide to arbitrate on based on the voting procedure described at wikipedia:arbitration policy." Therefore, the change that Jimbo is supporting would simply be to allow the Mediation Committee to refer cases without Jimbo's intervention. <http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-March/011973.html >
I think that we can discuss a set of guidelines on the mediation policy talk page that will address all of the concerns which have been raised by people.
Thanks, Brian (Bcorr)
On Tue, 2004-03-30 at 15:22, Fred Bauder wrote:
As it stands we have an effective mechanism to regulate access to arbitration. 4 arbitrators must vote to accept the case. What is being talked about is some change which would bypass or abrogate that mechanism. Apparently Jimbo's wish, but not absolutely sure. One of his referals (Anthony) never got the 4 votes and he made no comment. Fred
I think any procedure you come up with will be satisfactory. I suggest referal ought to come from the mediator who is familiar with the case. This would count as referral by the committee, absent an overide. (You would need to make that your policy)
My meta suggestion is to adapt some policy (with a minimum of fuss) and move on.
We are very near, hopefully, to ratifying an arbitration policy which would permit referrals by the meditation committee as a whole, individual mediators or indeed anyone who requests arbitration. Referrals by the mediation committee would be given the most weight.
Fred
From: Brian Corr BCorr@NEAction.org Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2004 09:41:32 -0500 To: wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Qualifications for referrals to arbitration.
I think that it is very important that the Mediation Committee be empowered to send cases to the Arbitration Committee. I understand that it is worrisome to people that the Mediation Committee could force the Arbitration Committee to take a case even if they felt it did not merit review. However, the mediation process is not being taken seriously: not only is mediation seen as something that has little to no actual effect, there are also no negative consequences for trivial requests for mediation. Mediators are being burned out and very little progress is being made, despite a couple of successes.
So in short, the Mediation Committee is currently experiencing the very thing that some members of the Arbitration Committee fear -- being compelled to take cases where there may not be a serious intent on the part of those asking for mediation. If those requesting mediation knew that requests for mediation are part of a serious process that will eventually lead to a resolution, I believe it would go a long way towards making the system work better and reducing the burden on mediators -- and NOT but transferring that burden to the Arbitration Committee.
Also, I think that -- just as the Arbitration Committee has policies about accepting cases -- the Mediation Committee should be able to set its policies about how it would decide to refer cases to Arbitration with discussion from all interested people (and polling if needed). As a member of the Mediation Committee, I can't imagine asking to have a case referred to arbitration without consulting with my colleagues, but at the same time I'm a bit apprehensive about there being some sort of requirement that the Mediation Committee have a consensus or vote about it before a case is referred to arbitration. However, I agree that there needs to be agreement between both committees -- and other Wikipedians, for that matter -- on how this would work in practice.
And just to clarify for those who aren't intimately involved in these committees, the current system is that ONLY Jimbo can refer a case to Arbitration, and then the Arbitration Committee votes on whether to accept it: "Currently, the arbitrators accept referrals from Jimbo Wales only, which they decide to arbitrate on based on the voting procedure described at wikipedia:arbitration policy." Therefore, the change that Jimbo is supporting would simply be to allow the Mediation Committee to refer cases without Jimbo's intervention. <http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-March/011973.html >
I think that we can discuss a set of guidelines on the mediation policy talk page that will address all of the concerns which have been raised by people.
Thanks, Brian (Bcorr)
On Tue, 2004-03-30 at 15:22, Fred Bauder wrote:
As it stands we have an effective mechanism to regulate access to arbitration. 4 arbitrators must vote to accept the case. What is being talked about is some change which would bypass or abrogate that mechanism. Apparently Jimbo's wish, but not absolutely sure. One of his referals (Anthony) never got the 4 votes and he made no comment.
Fred
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I suggest you don't fool with such matters beyond the point you determine lack of intent to mediate. Move em on.
Fred
From: Brian Corr BCorr@NEAction.org Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2004 09:41:32 -0500 To: wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Qualifications for referrals to arbitration.
So in short, the Mediation Committee is currently experiencing the very thing that some members of the Arbitration Committee fear -- being compelled to take cases where there may not be a serious intent on the part of those asking for mediation.
Mediate em in the morning; arbitrate em in the afternoon; hang em at sundown