I think the Mediation Committee can also refer a matter to arbitration. At least it /said/ it can.
Do we need to change the rules?
Should it be just any user who can refer a matter to the arbitration committee? Should the A.C. then decide what the next step is? How about:
* temp ban * refer to Mediation Committee * hear the case
Must there be a prescribed order? A lot of us don't want to wait 2 whole weeks! Even 5 days seems like a lifetime around here...
Ed Poor, aka Uncle Ed
This question is exactly what the arbitration committee is currently discussing as far as permanent procedure is concerned. Opinion is divided.
The temporary emergency procedure requires a referral from Jimbo. I'm sure a request from the mediation committee stating that mediation had been tried and failed would be influential.
Fred
From: "Poor, Edmund W" Edmund.W.Poor@abc.com Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2004 11:11:41 -0500 To: "English Wikipedia" wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: [WikiEN-l] Referring a matter (was: The Block Log)
I think the Mediation Committee can also refer a matter to arbitration. At least it /said/ it can.
Do we need to change the rules?
Should it be just any user who can refer a matter to the arbitration committee? Should the A.C. then decide what the next step is? How about:
- temp ban
- refer to Mediation Committee
- hear the case
Must there be a prescribed order? A lot of us don't want to wait 2 whole weeks! Even 5 days seems like a lifetime around here...
Ed Poor, aka Uncle Ed _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Ed wrote:
I think the Mediation Committee can also refer a matter to arbitration. At least it /said/ it can.
Do we need to change the rules?
Should it be just any user who can refer a matter to the arbitration committee? Should the A.C. then decide what the next step is? How about:
- temp ban
- refer to Mediation Committee
- hear the case
Must there be a prescribed order? A lot of us don't want to wait 2 whole weeks! Even 5 days seems like a lifetime around here...
The Arbitration Committee will take referrals from the Mediation Committee once they go fully live (and from individuals, but they may refer these to the Mediation Committee where they think that best). Until they are ready to officially open they have said they will take cases via Jimbo only. That's what I understood anyway.
--sannse
Poor, Edmund W wrote:
I think the Mediation Committee can also refer a matter to arbitration. At least it /said/ it can.
For the moment, to keep the load on them down while they continue finalizing their procedures, the arbitration committee has asked that I stand between them and various cases, referring only those for which there's a crucial need.
Must there be a prescribed order? A lot of us don't want to wait 2 whole weeks! Even 5 days seems like a lifetime around here...
I think you're right, and we can all remember that this is a good faith effort to feel our way forward carefully. Things will get better as we learn what works and what doesn't.
Believe me, I want this whole thing to be fast and efficient. If it isn't, then I'm going to continue to be in the middle of such fights, and that's a job I want to be out of completely by at least the end of this year, if not by much sooner.
--Jimbo
On Wed, 18 Feb 2004, Poor, Edmund W wrote:
I think the Mediation Committee can also refer a matter to arbitration. At least it /said/ it can.
Do we need to change the rules?
Should it be just any user who can refer a matter to the arbitration committee? Should the A.C. then decide what the next step is? How about:
- temp ban
- refer to Mediation Committee
- hear the case
Must there be a prescribed order? A lot of us don't want to wait 2 whole weeks! Even 5 days seems like a lifetime around here...
The step involving the Mediation is not going to work.
1. The Label "Committee" is something of a misnomer; the members do not meet as a group or decide things as a group. It's a list of people who are willing to mediate.
2. The function of the chairman of the Committee is more to act as a go-between between the Committee's members & anyone desiring mediation. To expect the chair to receive requests for arbitration, investigate, then forward them, I feel, is not something the chair should be involved in. (Although the chair may have a place in the process if the mediation process broke down due to lack of participation by one of the parties.)
3. To ask any member of the Mediation Committee to do the same is also not right. Using a personal example, as a member of the Mediation Committee with this privilege, were to receive a request to send Wik to arbitration, I'd forward it in a hearbeat, based on my own opinion of him. If it were someone else, I'd be more inclined to investigate matters to determine whether Mediation is not the best solution. Some Wikipedians I would probably decline to refer to Arbitration based on my own opinion of that Wikipedian. Can everyone be comfortable with such possible expressions of prejudice?
Rather, I think what is needed are several pathways to Arbitration:
* Failure of Mediation is obviously one path. * Requests from a given number of Wikipedians in good standing should be another. (By this, say 10 Wikipedians want me, Llywrch, investigated by the committee for my behavior concerning the [[Paleosiberian Literature]] article. And by "Wikipedians in good standing" I'm thinking of some minimum qualification that 95% of us should meet -- having a registered username, currently active in Wikipedia, & not currently involved as a subject in either Mediation or Arbitration.) * A grandfather clause. By this, I am referring to a number of urgent conflicts that were underway before January 1, 2004. I believe prompt attention to these conflicts would help bring credibility to the process. We can't just wipe the slate clean as of that date; we are currently having problems now due to behaviors from then.
Geoff