Hot on the heels of my comments about the RfC procedure, I've created [[Wikipedia:Wikimediation]], which I think will work much like I want RfC to work, without leading to agonizing debates over whether to change something. Basically, it's an opportunity for communal mediation, where people can leave constructive comments on how disputes and behavior might be handled better and more productively.
I encourage everybody to have a look at the page. I've started a test slate of a few disputes that I think run a broad spectrum of issues and behaviors, including my own conduct. I encourage people to go weigh in on some of the cases. I'm particularly interested in input on my own conduct, but I think there's a lot of good to be done over on that page now.
-Snowspinner
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Phil Sandifer wrote:
Hot on the heels of my comments about the RfC procedure, I've created [[Wikipedia:Wikimediation]], which I think will work much like I want RfC to work, without leading to agonizing debates over whether to change something. Basically, it's an opportunity for communal mediation, where people can leave constructive comments on how disputes and behavior might be handled better and more productively.
I encourage everybody to have a look at the page. I've started a test slate of a few disputes that I think run a broad spectrum of issues and behaviors, including my own conduct. I encourage people to go weigh in on some of the cases. I'm particularly interested in input on my own conduct, but I think there's a lot of good to be done over on that page now.
It's an interesting idea from an ideological view, but I'm not sure I like this 'open airing of grievances'. From my experiences with this (not on Wikipedia), the vast majority of times this will just exacerbate the situation and will worsen the disputees' opinions of each other.
Going through a mediator who can rephrase, clarify and/or nicefy people's disputes is really the only way to satisfactorily resolve disputes. Far more credit and support needs to be given to mediators so they can do this. It's an unrewarding task; people ought to make it rewarding for them.
Chris
- -- Chris Jenkinson chris@starglade.org
On 12/07/05, Phil Sandifer sandifer@sbcglobal.net wrote:
Hot on the heels of my comments about the RfC procedure, I've created [[Wikipedia:Wikimediation]]...
-Snowspinner
So now we have:
1. Official Mediation 2. Unofficial Mediation That Doesn't Exist (or whatever they call themselves :-) ) 3. RfCs (are you talking about content or editor ones here? Article ones often become mediations anyway) 4. Wikimediation
Not to mention,
1. 3rd opinions 2. Wikiquette alerts 3. Probably some others I've forgotten
Erm...
Dan
On the other hand, this is the same dispute resolution procedure we use on Wikinews, where it's been effective. So while I for one am losing track of avenues one can have a bit of a moan in, this one may well be useful. Mind you, we've only needed it three times in six months on WN.
Dan
On 7/12/05, Phil Sandifer sandifer@sbcglobal.net wrote:
Hot on the heels of my comments about the RfC procedure, I've created [[Wikipedia:Wikimediation]], which I think will work much like I want RfC to work, without leading to agonizing debates over whether to change something. Basically, it's an opportunity for communal mediation, where people can leave constructive comments on how disputes and behavior might be handled better and more productively.
Phil, I think this is a great idea. Thanks for setting it up.
I have a question. You wrote on the page that it's not intended as a dry run for an RfC or arbitration, because it's intended to be non-confrontational. However, if someone were to take a case through Wikimediation, do you envisage that it could be cited as part of the dispute-resolution process to allow a case to proceed before the arbcom? Or is your preference that the two be kept entirely separate?
The reason I ask is that I'm currently dealing with an editor who's in the habit of launching personal attacks. I'm considering approaching the arbcom, and so I have to begin dispute resolution. I really dislike the RfC process because it becomes so vitriolic, and so I'm thinking about writing it up for Wikimediation instead. However, one of my aims in doing so would be to fulfill the arbcom requirement of having tried alternative means of resolving the issue.
Would you see that as an inappropriate use of Wikimediation?
Sarah
I certainly wouldn't think that Wikimediation rules out eventual escalation to the arbcom. I mean, it would be stupid to guarantee that Wikimediation will fix all problems. It won't. So I guess my question would be whether you could go into Wikimediation with a sincere belief that it might help the problem. If you can, go for it. If you are just going because you want to check off the requirement for the arbcom, it's probably a lost cause.
I'd personally hope the former is the case, and so encourage you to try it, but I'm not inside your head and can't tell you if you think it has any hope of working.
-Snowspinner
On Jul 12, 2005, at 4:45 PM, slimvirgin@gmail.com slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/12/05, Phil Sandifer sandifer@sbcglobal.net wrote:
Hot on the heels of my comments about the RfC procedure, I've created [[Wikipedia:Wikimediation]], which I think will work much like I want RfC to work, without leading to agonizing debates over whether to change something. Basically, it's an opportunity for communal mediation, where people can leave constructive comments on how disputes and behavior might be handled better and more productively.
Phil, I think this is a great idea. Thanks for setting it up.
I have a question. You wrote on the page that it's not intended as a dry run for an RfC or arbitration, because it's intended to be non-confrontational. However, if someone were to take a case through Wikimediation, do you envisage that it could be cited as part of the dispute-resolution process to allow a case to proceed before the arbcom? Or is your preference that the two be kept entirely separate?
The reason I ask is that I'm currently dealing with an editor who's in the habit of launching personal attacks. I'm considering approaching the arbcom, and so I have to begin dispute resolution. I really dislike the RfC process because it becomes so vitriolic, and so I'm thinking about writing it up for Wikimediation instead. However, one of my aims in doing so would be to fulfill the arbcom requirement of having tried alternative means of resolving the issue.
Would you see that as an inappropriate use of Wikimediation?
Sarah _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 7/12/05, Phil Sandifer sandifer@sbcglobal.net wrote:
So I guess my question would be whether you could go into Wikimediation with a sincere belief that it might help the problem. If you can, go for it. If you are just going because you want to check off the requirement for the arbcom, it's probably a lost cause.
Thanks, Phil, that's helpful. The tendency toward personal attacks from this user is such that an arbcom case is probably the best way to settle it.
I'll think about it some more. If I can figure out a way to present the case so that it sounds constructive and helpful, rather than accusatory, I'll give Wikimediation a shot.
Sarah
In general I like the idea of Mediation reform, but there are some things to sort out, namely that specific proposals require some practical justification. First of all, having "Mediation" and "Wikimediation" steps in the same WP:DR process can be confusing -- where's the line with regard to roles between the two? Secondly, WP:MC is so out of the loop vis-à-vis the WP:AC, that its not proper to claim that there is a direct line of process there.
I always thought it silly for MC to be an AC lite anyway. WP:MC was originally built in as an afterthought to the AC, and to assert a finer difference, some strict bounds were implemented, because 1) it was thought that mediators should be prevented from becoming like the Arbcom, and 2) so that somehow through strict WMIN (~WWIN) definitions, its role would be more defined and sensible. IMHO whats happened is that its generally been a bit confused. MC was defined relative to AC, but without a clear vision to what MC could do that would persist through WPs since quadrupling in size and users. Having no binding authority, and otherwise bogged down with a "mutual acceptance" policy (now experimentally being torched BTW), the result has been a bit disorganized, and slow.
For what purpose does MC exist, then? The values promoted by the mediating role are ones which should be promoted for everyone, not just a committee. I think that weve had some things backwards with MC for a while, and I think WP would be better served with an open Mediation process.
Then what should the current MC committee do? Oversee the open committee? I dont know. Ive suggested an NPOV committee would be useful, which sort of interprets NPOV issues case by case, and makes a centralized reference database for how to approach these cases. Depending on your view of disputes on WP and the disruptiveness of these toward articles and their improvement, then you can say an NPOV committee is either a great thing or waste of time.
Recap: Promote open mediation / moderation principles -- consolodate specific NPOV debates to a committee.
~S
I like the idea of opening up the
--- Phil Sandifer sandifer@sbcglobal.net wrote:
I certainly wouldn't think that Wikimediation rules out eventual escalation to the arbcom. I mean, it would be stupid to guarantee that Wikimediation will fix all problems. It won't. So I guess my question would be whether you could go into Wikimediation with a sincere belief that it might help the problem. If you can, go for it. If you are just going because you want to check off the requirement for the arbcom, it's probably a lost cause.
I'd personally hope the former is the case, and so encourage you to try it, but I'm not inside your head and can't tell you if you think it has any hope of working.
-Snowspinner
On Jul 12, 2005, at 4:45 PM, slimvirgin@gmail.com
slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/12/05, Phil Sandifer sandifer@sbcglobal.net
wrote:
Hot on the heels of my comments about the RfC
procedure, I've created
[[Wikipedia:Wikimediation]], which I think will
work much like I want
RfC to work, without leading to agonizing debates
over whether to
change something. Basically, it's an opportunity
for communal
mediation, where people can leave constructive
comments on how
disputes and behavior might be handled better and
more productively.
Phil, I think this is a great idea. Thanks for
setting it up.
I have a question. You wrote on the page that it's
not intended as a
dry run for an RfC or arbitration, because it's
intended to be
non-confrontational. However, if someone were to
take a case through
Wikimediation, do you envisage that it could be
cited as part of the
dispute-resolution process to allow a case to
proceed before the
arbcom? Or is your preference that the two be kept
entirely separate?
The reason I ask is that I'm currently dealing
with an editor who's in
the habit of launching personal attacks. I'm
considering approaching
the arbcom, and so I have to begin dispute
resolution. I really
dislike the RfC process because it becomes so
vitriolic, and so I'm
thinking about writing it up for Wikimediation
instead. However, one
of my aims in doing so would be to fulfill the
arbcom requirement of
having tried alternative means of resolving the
issue.
Would you see that as an inappropriate use of
Wikimediation?
Sarah _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
____________________________________________________ Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
steve v wrote:
WP:MC was originally built in as an afterthought to the AC, and to assert a finer difference, some strict bounds were implemented, because 1) it was thought that mediators should be prevented from becoming like the Arbcom, and 2) so that somehow through strict WMIN (~WWIN) definitions, its role would be more defined and sensible. IMHO whats happened is that its generally been a bit confused. MC was defined relative to AC, but without a clear vision to what MC could do that would persist through WPs since quadrupling in size and users. Having no binding authority, and otherwise bogged down with a "mutual acceptance" policy (now experimentally being torched BTW), the result has been a bit disorganized, and slow.
This is a very distorted history of the mediation committee. The original committee was created at the same time as the arbitration committee, and we decided on our rules and procedures independently. One of the decisions we made was that each mediation would be carried out independently and confidentially by a single mediator. This had two negative effects: the mediator did not have the support needed to perform this difficult role, and any successes (and despite what has been said there /were/ some successes) became invisible.
It's easy enough to burn out on the arbitration committee, where problems can be talked through with the rest of the team - it's even easier on the mediation committee where each mediator works alone.
Snowspinner's idea of a more open version of mediation is one I support fully.
--sannse
I suspect people may have missed the point of my earlier mail :-).
We now have some seven or so dispute resolution channels. That's probably more than the number of editors willing to get stuck in and mediate at any one time. We're spreading a very small resource ever more thinly.
We need, rather, more people getting involved. If more people responded to RfCs in a constructive, mediative manner, we'd probably see fewer cases going to 'official' mediation and even the Arbcom.
Dan
--- Dan Grey dangrey@gmail.com wrote:
We need, rather, more people getting involved. If more people responded to RfCs in a constructive, mediative manner, we'd probably see fewer cases going to 'official' mediation and even the Arbcom.
Right. And 'official' mediation never had a pre-process anyway. And because RFM would need to work differently and more formally than a pre-process (Moderation would be a better term to use), then some changes need to be made to MC as well. I.e. an RFM-like process will naturally effect RFM, but may be it will be positive.
S
____________________________________________________ Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
It's probably worth noting that my original conception of Wikimediation was as a revamp of the RfC procedure. I decided that it would be easier to try it and then unleash it if it's successful, and let it peter off if it's not. So my hope is that we'd have some consolidation. I also hope that the mediation committee will get itself together and start working well, and we might be able to consolidate the mediation bits.
-Snowspinner
On Jul 13, 2005, at 9:35 AM, Dan Grey wrote:
I suspect people may have missed the point of my earlier mail :-).
We now have some seven or so dispute resolution channels. That's probably more than the number of editors willing to get stuck in and mediate at any one time. We're spreading a very small resource ever more thinly.
We need, rather, more people getting involved. If more people responded to RfCs in a constructive, mediative manner, we'd probably see fewer cases going to 'official' mediation and even the Arbcom.
Dan _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
You're exactly right, Sannse, and you summed that up much much more clearly than I would have. My theory was that the codified isolation of MC and its results was based in a fear that MC should be AC like -- which is still my (vague) memory of it. But in any case, your right -- ancient motivations are now irrelevant, and whats left is the results, and the need for reevaluation and restructuring.
S
--- sannse sannse@tiscali.co.uk wrote:
steve v wrote:
WP:MC was originally built in as an afterthought to the AC, and to assert a finer difference, some strict bounds were implemented, because 1) it was thought that mediators should be prevented from becoming like the Arbcom, and 2) so that somehow through strict WMIN (~WWIN)
definitions,
its role would be more defined and sensible. IMHO whats happened is that its generally been a bit confused. MC was defined relative to AC, but
without a
clear vision to what MC could do that would
persist
through WPs since quadrupling in size and users. Having no binding authority, and otherwise bogged
down
with a "mutual acceptance" policy (now
experimentally
being torched BTW), the result has been a bit disorganized, and slow.
This is a very distorted history of the mediation committee. The original committee was created at the same time as the arbitration committee, and we decided on our rules and procedures independently. One of the decisions we made was that each mediation would be carried out independently and confidentially by a single mediator. This had two negative effects: the mediator did not have the support needed to perform this difficult role, and any successes (and despite what has been said there /were/ some successes) became invisible.
It's easy enough to burn out on the arbitration committee, where problems can be talked through with the rest of the team - it's even easier on the mediation committee where each mediator works alone.
Snowspinner's idea of a more open version of mediation is one I support fully.
--sannse _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
____________________________________________________ Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs