(Note: intlwiki-l is supposed to be about issues relating specifically to internationalization, but I know that some people on intlwiki-l may not read wikipedia-l. I've set the reply-to on this message to wikipedia-l, because this is really a global policy issue that should be discussed there, but I've included intlwiki-l, because I want to reach those people as well.)
To the present day, we have been operating under a 'benevolent dictator' model as regards governance issues generally, and in particular issues relating to suspension of editing privileges for those who can't seem to co-operate with others.
This has worked reasonably well (depending on who you ask, I guess) on the English wikipedia, because I have spent a lot of time doing investigations into controversial people, and have been willing to "take the heat" for the few bans that we've had to implement.
But that model doesn't work nearly so well for other languages, primarily because I'm not able to read the direct controversies, and so I have to rely on testimony from people who are arguing, and what actually ends up happening is that whoever is most fluent in English ends up carrying the day by presenting their side of the dispute.
We have just begun a process on en of formalizing the decision procedures for banning people, through the use of two committees of volunteers. The first "line of defense" is a mediation committee, which attempts to work with parties to find a mutually agreeable solution to a problem. This committee has no power to ban or to do anything other than act as an outside recommendation for a solution.
The second "line of defense" is the arbitration committee, which will be tasked with the difficult and painful and regrettable task of banning someone from editing.
This is mainly an experiment, and we shall see over time how it works out. I hope it works well.
I would like to encourage a similar setup on the larger non-English wikipedias, perhaps customized to some extent to fit localized needs. But the overall concept is to have in place clear methods for group decision making that are respectful of our overall ideals.
On the English wikipedia, this was not necessary until now, but on the other wikipedias I think that it is necessary sooner because there is no real way for me to be an effective benevolent dictator.
So, let's discuss this.
--Jimbo
From: Jimmy Wales Friday, December 05, 2003 7:26 AM
<snip>
We have just begun a process on en of formalizing the decision procedures for banning people, through the use of two committees of volunteers. The first "line of defense" is a mediation committee, which attempts to work with parties to find a mutually agreeable solution to a problem. This committee has no power to ban or to do anything other than act as an outside recommendation for a solution.
The second "line of defense" is the arbitration committee, which will be tasked with the difficult and painful and regrettable task of banning someone from editing.
This is mainly an experiment, and we shall see over time how it works out. I hope it works well.
If it is to be an experiment, we should try to figure out beforehand what our metric of success is. Total success would be if neither committee ever needs to act. But the gradations in between are more complicated.
For example, which is better: if a high or low percentage of cases reviewed by the arbitration committee end in sanction or banning?
Which is better: if the arbitration committee agrees or disagrees with the mediators' actions?
That second relates to an important point: if a case is presented to the arbitration committee, what is being judged is not just the actions of the user(s) that resulted in mediation, but the entire process that led to arbitration, including what the mediators did.
I think using bulletin boards for this is good, because I think it will be very important to establish a reviewable case history.
The nearly immutable law of government is that while over the short term dangers to the health of society come from individual actors, over the long term the dangers come from the system.
It should be everyone's goal to figure out ways to eliminate potential problems before they can happen.
A good real world example of that is drugs; because it is a criminal act to use illegal drugs, millions of dollars and manhours and lives are spent in combatting drug use (the "war on drugs"). But if the drugs (such as marijuana) are decriminalized, a host of downstream costs to society disappear. There *are* different complications and needs (tobacco is a good example of the potential problems of having drugs be legal to use) but it's a lot easier to deal with drugs as a health issue than a crime issue.
Yours, --tc
The Cunctator wrote:
If it is to be an experiment, we should try to figure out beforehand what our metric of success is. Total success would be if neither committee ever needs to act. But the gradations in between are more complicated.
I think it's unrealistic to expect that the mediation committee would never need to act. Many times people do have real disputes, and if they'll agree to mediation, and that resolves the dispute by just getting the two parties to agree, then all the better.
I don't think it's unrealistic to expect that the arbitration committee should have to act only rarely.
For example, which is better: if a high or low percentage of cases reviewed by the arbitration committee end in sanction or banning?
Oh, I hope a very low percentage. I'm hopeful that a good system for mediation will reduce the number of cases where problems get to the point that banning is necessary. It's long been said, and I agree to some extent, that Wikipedia tends to turn our problem users into monsters.
Which is better: if the arbitration committee agrees or disagrees with the mediators' actions?
Hmmm, I'm not really sure about that. I suppose it's better if both committees behave in a kind, loving, friendly, benevolent, and rational manner, so that disagreements are rare, and that if disagreements do happen, they happen under circumstances where everyone agrees that the issue was complex and that both positions had some merit.
I think using bulletin boards for this is good, because I think it will be very important to establish a reviewable case history.
Unless someone objects strongly, I think that this is a very good idea.
The nearly immutable law of government is that while over the short term dangers to the health of society come from individual actors, over the long term the dangers come from the system.
I absolutely agree with this one.
A good real world example of that is drugs; because it is a criminal act to use illegal drugs, millions of dollars and manhours and lives are spent in combatting drug use (the "war on drugs"). But if the drugs (such as marijuana) are decriminalized, a host of downstream costs to society disappear. There *are* different complications and needs (tobacco is a good example of the potential problems of having drugs be legal to use) but it's a lot easier to deal with drugs as a health issue than a crime issue.
Well, you're obviously using the right language to speak to me, a very hardcore "libertarian" politically. :-)
--Jimbo
From: "The Cunctator" cunctator@kband.com Reply-To: wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2003 08:06:24 -0500 To: wikipedia-l@wikipedia.org, wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org Subject: RE: [Wikipedia-l] Arbitration/mediation on en
From: Jimmy Wales Friday, December 05, 2003 7:26 AM
<snip> > We have just begun a process on en of formalizing the decision > procedures for banning people, through the use of two committees of > volunteers. The first "line of defense" is a mediation committee, > which attempts to work with parties to find a mutually agreeable > solution to a problem. This committee has no power to ban or to do > anything other than act as an outside recommendation for a solution. > > The second "line of defense" is the arbitration committee, which will > be tasked with the difficult and painful and regrettable task of > banning someone from editing. > > This is mainly an experiment, and we shall see over time how it works > out. I hope it works well.
If it is to be an experiment, we should try to figure out beforehand what our metric of success is. Total success would be if neither committee ever needs to act. But the gradations in between are more complicated.
For example, which is better: if a high or low percentage of cases reviewed by the arbitration committee end in sanction or banning?
This must depend on the facts of the cases we get and the response of users to our decisions.
Which is better: if the arbitration committee agrees or disagrees with the mediators' actions?
We will know that mediation failed, but a useful legal convention, that we would probably wish to use, is that the details of negotiations and of what goes on in mediation are inadmissible as evidence in later proceedings. This frees up the parties to make concessions during negotiations and mediation without ruining their "case" for arbitration purposes.
That second relates to an important point: if a case is presented to the arbitration committee, what is being judged is not just the actions of the user(s) that resulted in mediation, but the entire process that led to arbitration, including what the mediators did.
We don't want to use this information because it makes mediation less effective. While the arbitration committee might from time to time comment on the total process and how it might have affected a particular case decisions regarding wikipedia process must remain here on the mailing lists and other discussion and decision making forums and Jimbo.
I think using bulletin boards for this is good, because I think it will be very important to establish a reviewable case history.
To review Jimbo needs to know what facts were considered and the basis for any decision.
The nearly immutable law of government is that while over the short term dangers to the health of society come from individual actors, over the long term the dangers come from the system.
It should be everyone's goal to figure out ways to eliminate potential problems before they can happen.
Before anyone can complain that someone has violated a policy that policy must both be set forth and make sense. Policies need to serve in some way the goals of delivering information and providing ways to add and refine information. However the arbitration committee is not a court of review of Wikipedia policies. We must work with existing policies. Breakdowns can occur if we can't understand them or how someone could comply with them, and perhaps in some cases we may be unable to render a decision, or at least a good decision.
A good real world example of that is drugs; because it is a criminal act to use illegal drugs, millions of dollars and manhours and lives are spent in combatting drug use (the "war on drugs"). But if the drugs (such as marijuana) are decriminalized, a host of downstream costs to society disappear. There *are* different complications and needs (tobacco is a good example of the potential problems of having drugs be legal to use) but it's a lot easier to deal with drugs as a health issue than a crime issue.
Well substitute persistant insistence on making articles reflect some particular point of view (including repeated reversions of any other point of view) and we have what kind of an issue? (although perhaps this is not actually our most important problem--experience will tell much)
Yours, --tc
Fred
On Fri, 5 Dec 2003, Jimmy Wales wrote:
I would like to encourage a similar setup on the larger non-English wikipedias, perhaps customized to some extent to fit localized needs. But the overall concept is to have in place clear methods for group decision making that are respectful of our overall ideals.
On the English wikipedia, this was not necessary until now, but on the other wikipedias I think that it is necessary sooner because there is no real way for me to be an effective benevolent dictator.
So, let's discuss this.
As far as my experience from the Dutch Wikipedia is, I do not see any need for this kind of institute yet. De facto the ruling is currently done by a relatively large group, consisting basically of the regular contributors (including but not restricted to the sysops). What conflicts there are that do not get immediately and amicably resolved, usually are between a single new user and several existing users. That would hardly be helped by mediation or arbitration, as a new user would see such as a clique protecting each other any way. Besides, they usually tend to either change their ways into something more fitting or leave Wikipedia well before that.
Andre Engels
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Hi,
Le Friday 05 December 2003 15:57, Andre Engels a écrit :
On Fri, 5 Dec 2003, Jimmy Wales wrote:
I would like to encourage a similar setup on the larger non-English wikipedias, perhaps customized to some extent to fit localized needs. But the overall concept is to have in place clear methods for group decision making that are respectful of our overall ideals.
On the English wikipedia, this was not necessary until now, but on the other wikipedias I think that it is necessary sooner because there is no real way for me to be an effective benevolent dictator.
So, let's discuss this.
As far as my experience from the Dutch Wikipedia is, I do not see any need for this kind of institute yet. De facto the ruling is currently done by a relatively large group, consisting basically of the regular contributors (including but not restricted to the sysops). What conflicts there are that do not get immediately and amicably resolved, usually are between a single new user and several existing users. That would hardly be helped by mediation or arbitration, as a new user would see such as a clique protecting each other any way. Besides, they usually tend to either change their ways into something more fitting or leave Wikipedia well before that.
Andre Engels
For the French WP, I would say like Andre. Up to now, most of the problems have been solved by discussion and consensus. In the case of the recently banned user, it is after that any other solution was tried that a unanimous vote decided to ban him.
Yann
- -- http://www.non-violence.org/ | Site collaboratif sur la non-violence http://www.forget-me.net/ | Alternatives sur le Net http://fr.wikipedia.org/ | Encyclopédie libre http://www.forget-me.net/pro/ | Formations et services Linux
Yann Forget a écrit:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Hi,
Le Friday 05 December 2003 15:57, Andre Engels a écrit :
On Fri, 5 Dec 2003, Jimmy Wales wrote:
I would like to encourage a similar setup on the larger non-English wikipedias, perhaps customized to some extent to fit localized needs. But the overall concept is to have in place clear methods for group decision making that are respectful of our overall ideals.
On the English wikipedia, this was not necessary until now, but on the other wikipedias I think that it is necessary sooner because there is no real way for me to be an effective benevolent dictator.
So, let's discuss this.
As far as my experience from the Dutch Wikipedia is, I do not see any need for this kind of institute yet. De facto the ruling is currently done by a relatively large group, consisting basically of the regular contributors (including but not restricted to the sysops). What conflicts there are that do not get immediately and amicably resolved, usually are between a single new user and several existing users. That would hardly be helped by mediation or arbitration, as a new user would see such as a clique protecting each other any way. Besides, they usually tend to either change their ways into something more fitting or leave Wikipedia well before that.
Andre Engels
For the French WP, I would say like Andre. Up to now, most of the problems have been solved by discussion and consensus. In the case of the recently banned user, it is after that any other solution was tried that a unanimous vote decided to ban him.
Yann
I waited for a while to see what french would say about this. And indeed, I am not surprised by your comment Yann.
There is somehow an arbitration commitee. We saw it on Papotages issue. The arbitration commitee involved basically any user that have been there for a couple of weeks. Every one was allowed to speak up on Papotages banning issue. Being a sysop or not made *no* difference whatsoever. I suppose though, that if recent users have declared themselves against the banning, their opinion would have been discarded. Their opinion was receivable because they agreed with the general opinion.
I hardly dare to say that the banning when it was pronounced, was *not* unanimous as you claim it was. You are arranging the truth Yann. It was perhaps very widely consensual; but on the 11th of november, if you claim it was unanimous, you are just lying. That our opinion was said non acceptable is one thing, however, I would appreciate that you recognised minorities opinions existed.
Of course, we will agree that *now* there is unanimity. But it was not such on the banning day.
The second is about mediation. As you say, we tried. Not all of us, not in an organised way, but we tried; and failed. However, I am sorry to say that several users, up to 2 months before the user was banned, considered any attempt at mediation, as troll feeding, and actively empeached the process of mediation, as they were already activity trying to out Papotages. That certainly did not help. I see not how mediation could ever be used properly on fr, as long as it is seen as a destructive or dangerous process for wikipedia, as I was told by some people. Setting up an official group of people who could help could have the benefit to make it clear to all, that mediation is meant to *help*, not to further *damage* Wikipedia.
In short, the banning process looked ok to me. The mediation one was a disaster :-) And one of the reason why Former User left Wikipedia in disgust.
I would be happy to read Aoineko opinion on mediation.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Hi,
Le Saturday 06 December 2003 00:33, Anthere a écrit :
For the French WP, I would say like Andre. Up to now, most of the problems have been solved by discussion and consensus. In the case of the recently banned user, it is after that any other solution was tried that a unanimous vote decided to ban him.
Yann
I waited for a while to see what french would say about this. And indeed, I am not surprised by your comment Yann.
There is somehow an arbitration commitee. We saw it on Papotages issue. The arbitration commitee involved basically any user that have been there for a couple of weeks. Every one was allowed to speak up on Papotages banning issue. Being a sysop or not made *no* difference whatsoever. I suppose though, that if recent users have declared themselves against the banning, their opinion would have been discarded. Their opinion was receivable because they agreed with the general opinion.
I don't think so. Where did you find this Anthere ?
I hardly dare to say that the banning when it was pronounced, was *not* unanimous as you claim it was. You are arranging the truth Yann. It was perhaps very widely consensual; but on the 11th of november, if you claim it was unanimous, you are just lying. That our opinion was said non acceptable is one thing, however, I would appreciate that you recognised minorities opinions existed.
Of course, we will agree that *now* there is unanimity. But it was not such on the banning day.
That is obviously false. Look at the archives: http://fr.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Wikip%E9dia:Prise_de_d%E9cision% 2C_bannir_Papotages&diff=156213&oldid=156212
The second is about mediation. As you say, we tried. Not all of us, not in an organised way, but we tried; and failed.
For to be a mediation, there is necessary an agreement on the principle of mediation. I think that Papotages never agreed on anything like this. I am not even sure he agreed to have *sincere* discussions.
I see that you have disagreements with a lot of people, up to the point to scare them away. :( cf. [[User:Céréales Killer]] below.
"Décidément, Anthere s'est jurée de m'égratigner dès qu'elle le peut. Je baisse les bras et j'arrête tout. Quelles sont tes dernières contributions constructives, Anthere ? A part surveiller ce que fait untel ou untel, et balancer des réflexions à tout va qui finissent par décourager, que fais-tu de vraiment constructif ? Moi, c'est bon, j'ai compris, j'abandonne. Tu es plus gentille et prudente avec PP qu'avec quelqu'un qui, comme moi, essaie d'apporter une max de choses à Wikipédia. Si ma présence te gêne à ce point là, c'est bon, j'ai compris, je me casse." Céréales Killer
Yann
- -- http://www.non-violence.org/ | Site collaboratif sur la non-violence http://www.forget-me.net/ | Alternatives sur le Net http://fr.wikipedia.org/ | Encyclopédie libre http://www.forget-me.net/pro/ | Formations et services Linux
Yann Forget a écrit:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
I suppose though, that if recent users have declared themselves against the banning, their opinion would have been discarded. Their opinion was receivable because they agreed with the general opinion.
I don't think so. Where did you find this Anthere ?
I did not find this Yann. I wrote it was an opinion based on recent events (I wrote "I suppose"). I did not say this was entirely abnormal either. It is quite understandable that there is suspicion that new commers are just trolls, and voting against the flood to make things more complicated. For example, some people thought Mulot a newbie, and when she wrote she opposed Traroth as an admin, she was answered she had less than 200 edits, hence was not allowed to speak up. I guess no one would have complained if she had said she was favorable to Traroth.
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia%3AAdministrateurs
In reality, Mulot has been on wikipedia more than a year ago, for a while. She often write anonymously, but given the amount of stuff she wrote on religion, she sure won the right to give her opinion.
Ihmo.
This is a fact. So, all I say is that perhaps we should better define for next time, who precisely, has the right to speak up for a ban decision (lentgh of presence, number of edits, whatever).
Of course, we will agree that *now* there is unanimity. But it was not such on the banning day.
That is obviously false. Look at the archives: http://fr.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Wikip%E9dia:Prise_de_d%E9cision% 2C_bannir_Papotages&diff=156213&oldid=156212
That link is not working I suggest this one http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%E9dia%3APrise_de_d%E9cision%2C_bannir_Pap... Under the "against" line, there are two names written. In claiming I am saying something false, you are being false, and you are being very unnice to Ryo and I. There was very very large support, but not unanimity
The second is about mediation. As you say, we tried. Not all of us, not in an organised way, but we tried; and failed.
For to be a mediation, there is necessary an agreement on the principle of mediation. I think that Papotages never agreed on anything like this. I am not even sure he agreed to have *sincere* discussions.
I see that you have disagreements with a lot of people, up to the point to scare them away. :( cf. [[User:Céréales Killer]] below.
I see not what is the relationship with the current issue at hand.
We are talking of mediation Yann, not about my relationships with CK, which are ok as far as I know
For a scared away contributor, CK is quite active http://fr.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Contributions&target=...
:-)
I only asked that CK candidacy to be a sysop be delayed for a month.
But I was the first one to *ever* dare to say I disaproved of someone named sysop. I guess it is a bit hard on the one who is disapproved, so I understand this reaction of him.
You did not answer to the proposition about mediation Yann. What do you think of it ? What was your experience in trying to mediate with Papotages ? My own experience was that instead of talking of the issue at hand (Papotages), some said I was feeding the troll, and subsequently attacked me on my other activities, such as saying to someone I disagreed for him to be a sysop. This has hardly any relationship.
So how do you think we can help a difficult user ? Do we decide to get rid of a problematic user as soon as possible to ensure the cohesion of the group, or do we try to make them join us ?
J'aimerais bien que tu te concentres sur le sujet en cours Yann
Puisque tu navigues dans le domaine de la non violence, tu dois pouvoir avoir des idées sur ce que nous pourrions faire pour mettre en place qlq chose de décent en matière de médiation. Si a chaque fois que l on parle de mediation, la réponse est * "oui mais papotages est blablabla" (il n y a pas que papotages dans le vie) * "oui mais anthere a été pas gentille avec ck" (ce qui est un tout autre sujet)
on y arrivera jamais.
La non violence, ce n est pas cacher que des problemes existent, c est reconnaitre leur existence, et essayer de trouver des solutions. Alors, aide moi a essayer de trouver des solutions plutot.
Btw Yann,
All I commented yesterday to CK, was npov respect Yann.
There was a very honest and friendly discussion between Al, Fvdp and I yesterday evening on the matter. There is no way Wikipedia is gonna recommand that people should use the word "Aubette" rather than "Abribus". It may be the Académie Française recommandation, but it is not Wikipédia role to tell people which words to use.
It is not Wikipedia to tell people they should say aubette rather than abribus ruban adhésif, rather than scotch either. or bâtonnet ouaté rather than cotton tige or about a dozen others
People do use "abribus" as a word. Not "aubette". It is not reasonable that Wikipedia tell them to change their habits. It is not our goal. We should not take position ourselves, but rather attribute what is written on the pages. As such, suggesting a change such as "the Academie française suggests than the word aubette be prefered to abribus" is fine. But the very directive; "do prefer aubette to abribus" is not npov. It is telling people how to talk, with words that are not common usage.
I understand not his reaction to Fvdp, Al and I suggestion, especially when he considers me modifying his pages to respect npov is an attack that deserves him leaving Wikipedia.
If CK cannot tolerate such modifications, and an easygoing discussion on his talk page on the topic, I fear there is a problem with him indeed. If he cannot tolerate that we change his articles, there is a problem indeed.
So, I have a suggestion to you : would you mediate between the two of us ?
I think this is already what you have in mind, but just to clarify what I think is an important point, is this the correct understanding of the two committees' "power", such that it is? --
Mediation: Involved in both disputes between users, and in particularly difficult disputes over articles (including content and content presentation), for example by suggesting compromise wording or rearrangements. Mediators have no specific power to impose a solution, but should act in good faith, and hopefully their efforts will be seen as a good faith attempt to mediate disputes to reach a mutually agreeable conclusion.
Arbitration: *Only* tasked with reviewing potential bans of users. Does *not* have any power with regards to arbitrating the disputes over content or content presentation. Basically, this committee is what decides when someone simply cannot work within Wikipedia, after an appeal from someone who has made that claim and asked the user to be banned. The actual disputes themselves stay at the mediation level indefinitely, and are not subject to arbitration (any "voting" decision on them would be a wider vote on the talk page, presumably).
-Mark
From: Delirium delirium@rufus.d2g.com Reply-To: wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2003 13:07:43 -0800 To: wikipedia-l@wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Arbitration/mediation on en
I think this is already what you have in mind, but just to clarify what I think is an important point, is this the correct understanding of the two committees' "power", such that it is? --
Mediation: Involved in both disputes between users, and in particularly difficult disputes over articles (including content and content presentation), for example by suggesting compromise wording or rearrangements. Mediators have no specific power to impose a solution, but should act in good faith, and hopefully their efforts will be seen as a good faith attempt to mediate disputes to reach a mutually agreeable conclusion.
Arbitration: *Only* tasked with reviewing potential bans of users. Does *not* have any power with regards to arbitrating the disputes over content or content presentation. Basically, this committee is what decides when someone simply cannot work within Wikipedia, after an appeal from someone who has made that claim and asked the user to be banned. The actual disputes themselves stay at the mediation level indefinitely, and are not subject to arbitration (any "voting" decision on them would be a wider vote on the talk page, presumably).
-Mark
The arbitrators cannot decide any dispute that is not submitted to us, but I think our jurisdiction should include disputes over content in appropriate instances, for example, where repeated struggles to produce a NPOV article have failed.
Fred
Fred Bauder wrote:
The arbitrators cannot decide any dispute that is not submitted to us, but I think our jurisdiction should include disputes over content in appropriate instances, for example, where repeated struggles to produce a NPOV article have failed.
Of course. Arbitrators who are narrowly focused on whether someone should be banned or not would be a waste of human resources. Based on the facts in an actual case, they should have a wide range of possible solutions available to them.
Ec
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Fred Bauder wrote:
The arbitrators cannot decide any dispute that is not submitted to us, but I think our jurisdiction should include disputes over content in appropriate instances, for example, where repeated struggles to produce a NPOV article have failed.
Of course. Arbitrators who are narrowly focused on whether someone should be banned or not would be a waste of human resources. Based on the facts in an actual case, they should have a wide range of possible solutions available to them.
I do see your point somewhat, and might be willing to let arbitrators do things like set up a vote and interpret its results. I'm somewhat opposed, however, to letting an arbitration committee actually arbitrate the content of controversial articles. If something cannot be worked out through mediation and must be put to a vote, I think a vote of the contributors on the talk page is preferable to a vote by a separate committee.
In my view, the arbitration committee should really only be taking over powers previously reserved by Jimbo, which are basically to make decisions on banning and procedural matters. He's never reserved a right to dictate resolutions to content disputes, and I don't think the new committee should either.
-Mark
Delirium wrote:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Fred Bauder wrote:
The arbitrators cannot decide any dispute that is not submitted to us, but I think our jurisdiction should include disputes over content in appropriate instances, for example, where repeated struggles to produce a NPOV article have failed.
Of course. Arbitrators who are narrowly focused on whether someone should be banned or not would be a waste of human resources. Based on the facts in an actual case, they should have a wide range of possible solutions available to them.
I do see your point somewhat, and might be willing to let arbitrators do things like set up a vote and interpret its results. I'm somewhat opposed, however, to letting an arbitration committee actually arbitrate the content of controversial articles. If something cannot be worked out through mediation and must be put to a vote, I think a vote of the contributors on the talk page is preferable to a vote by a separate committee.
In my view, the arbitration committee should really only be taking over powers previously reserved by Jimbo, which are basically to make decisions on banning and procedural matters. He's never reserved a right to dictate resolutions to content disputes, and I don't think the new committee should either.
I agree that having arbitrators decide on the contents of an article would be unwise, but then so is voting on the contents or an overdependence on Google statistics.
We have a number of contributors who are otherwise very good contributors, but who tend to go off the deep end when dealing with certain subjects. Depending on how the meta-data discussion ends up it could be possible to block a user from editing a range of articles. Thus a person who loses perspective over the Middle East conflict could be barred from editing any article that are classified with the words "Israel" and "Palestine". Arbitrators would still primarily deal with disciplinary matters. (I don't know about the procedural) They could still have a wide range of solutions available.
Mediators could be more free to deal with content since they would not be implementing solutions. In dealing with an edit war over content, by talking with the parties they could perhaps convince both to shift their positions.
Ec
Eclecticology wrote in part:
Delirium wrote:
In my view, the arbitration committee should really only be taking over powers previously reserved by Jimbo, which are basically to make decisions on banning and procedural matters. He's never reserved a right to dictate resolutions to content disputes, and I don't think the new committee should either.
We have a number of contributors who are otherwise very good contributors, but who tend to go off the deep end when dealing with certain subjects. Depending on how the meta-data discussion ends up it could be possible to block a user from editing a range of articles. Thus a person who loses perspective over the Middle East conflict could be barred from editing any article that are classified with the words "Israel" and "Palestine". Arbitrators would still primarily deal with disciplinary matters. (I don't know about the procedural) They could still have a wide range of solutions available.
Note this distinction:
"The arbitration committee rules that [[User:X]] is hereby banned."
may be softened to:
"The arbitration committee rules that [[User:X]] is hereby banned from all articles relating directly to politics of the State of Israel."
which is rather unlike
"The arbitration committee rules that [[User:X]]'s edits to [[Palestine]] are wrong and [[User:Y]]'s version is the one that we will keep."
I believe that Ec is arguing for #2 (the ban of limited extent), while Mark is arguing against #3 (the direct ruling on content). So there should be no conflict here.
And inasmuch as the arbitration committee is known to have #1 available, I also would support allowing #2 but not allowing #3.
-- Toby
On 12/5/03 6:54 PM, "Ray Saintonge" saintonge@telus.net wrote:
We have a number of contributors who are otherwise very good contributors, but who tend to go off the deep end when dealing with certain subjects. Depending on how the meta-data discussion ends up it could be possible to block a user from editing a range of articles. Thus a person who loses perspective over the Middle East conflict could be barred from editing any article that are classified with the words "Israel" and "Palestine". Arbitrators would still primarily deal with disciplinary matters. (I don't know about the procedural) They could still have a wide range of solutions available.
That possibility disgusts me.
On Sat, 2003-12-06 at 05:30, The Cunctator wrote:
On 12/5/03 6:54 PM, "Ray Saintonge" saintonge@telus.net wrote: > We have a number of contributors who are otherwise very good > contributors, but who tend to go off the deep end when dealing with > certain subjects. Depending on how the meta-data discussion ends up it > could be possible to block a user from editing a range of articles. > Thus a person who loses perspective over the Middle East conflict could > be barred from editing any article that are classified with the words > "Israel" and "Palestine". Arbitrators would still primarily deal with > disciplinary matters. (I don't know about the procedural) They could > still have a wide range of solutions available.
That possibility disgusts me.
Me too. As does the whole discussion of whether arbitrators should have a remit which includes content of articles.
I think this highlights the fact that the missing third wheel of the mediation/arbitration pair is Expert Determination.
I think Alex756 briefly mentioned this in a much earlier discussion, but it got lost in the volume of discussion about arbitration and mediation, which are slightly better known by most folks. So, Alex756, would you like to recap?
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen (aka Cimon Avaro)
From: Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
Me too. As does the whole discussion of whether arbitrators should have a remit which includes content of articles.
I think this highlights the fact that the missing third wheel of the mediation/arbitration pair is Expert Determination.
I think Alex756 briefly mentioned this in a much earlier discussion, but it got lost in the volume of discussion about arbitration and >mediation, which are slightly better known by most folks. So, Alex756, would you like to recap?
Arbitrators make decisions based upon a dispute. Sometimes this dispute is based upon facts, or relationships between facts (we often call that law, rules) or relationships between rules (adjectival dispute resolution). There are facts that are readily determinable through such activities as reviewing documents, listening to the testimony of individuals (I was there, I saw what happened) or through an expert. I am assuming that this is what you are interested in. Such experts make reports. It is true that experts may have differing opinions, thus several experts (representing each position in a dispute) may tender their reports and opinions. True the arbiters may make the final decisions ( these may be judge like or jury like, or a combination of those roles) but their decisions must bear some reasonable relationship to the generally accepted methodologies of the experts. Or they could make a reference to such experts, or a panel thereof and that panel could make a determination based upon their generally recognized expert qualifications ir the arbiters could appoint an expert and ask for a report. Such report may be questioned by the various parties to the arbitration (they are not litigants, arbitration is basically a contractual relationship, not one that is state imposed) and some type of appeal to the arbitrators may be possible if the experts make a determination that can be shown to disregard the decision making process of their expertise. There are really many ways in which arbitration and the determination of experts can interact. Does that help, Cimon?
Alex
On Sat, 2003-12-06 at 06:49, Alex R. wrote:
From: Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
>Me too. As does the whole discussion of whether arbitrators should have a remit which includes content of articles.
>I think this highlights the fact that the missing third wheel of the mediation/arbitration pair is Expert Determination.
>I think Alex756 briefly mentioned this in a much earlier discussion, but it got lost in the volume of discussion about arbitration and >mediation, which are slightly better known by most folks. So, Alex756, would you like to recap?
Arbitrators make decisions based upon a dispute.
Yes, well this is pretty much the problem with having wikimedias arbitrators decide the content of articles. The content of the articles can almost never be easily framed as a "dispute" (where there are two clear alternatives).
Almost always quarrels over article content are what are technically termed "issues" (where the object of the dispute resolution is to discover what the content should be, not which). Or so I think.
If a one were to allow disputant wikipedians to bring to arbitration "formulated disputes" between two versions of an article, that would be a horrendous usurpation of the wikipedia editorship as a whole.
Sometimes this dispute is based upon facts, or relationships between facts (we often call that law, rules) or relationships between rules (adjectival dispute resolution). There are facts that are readily determinable through such activities as reviewing documents, listening to the testimony of individuals (I was there, I saw what happened) or through an expert. I am assuming that this is what you are interested in. Such experts make reports. It is true that experts may have differing opinions, thus several experts (representing each position in a dispute) may tender their reports and opinions. True the arbiters may make the final decisions ( these may be judge like or jury like, or a combination of those roles) but their decisions must bear some reasonable relationship to the generally accepted methodologies of the experts. Or they could make a reference to such experts, or a panel thereof and that panel could make a determination based upon their generally recognized expert qualifications ir the arbiters could appoint an expert and ask for a report. Such report may be questioned by the various parties to the arbitration (they are not litigants, arbitration is basically a contractual relationship, not one that is state imposed) and some type of appeal to the arbitrators may be possible if the experts make a determination that can be shown to disregard the decision making process of their expertise. There are really many ways in which arbitration and the determination of experts can interact. Does that help, Cimon?
Well yes, it helps define what I wasn't talking about ;-)
I guess I was thinking more on the lines of expert determination like that in cases where a contract itself says that in case of a dispute an independent expert is brought in, and produces a binding evaluation.
I confess that the problem with this is where to find an outside expert, as quite likely they are already embroiled anyway. Looking outside wikipedia has problems, though there is precedent for that. I'm thinking about the case of Florentin Smarandache and his Neutrosophy article (from my first days on wikipedia, btw).
As I recall, in that case the man was totally unable to write about himself and his theory comprehensibly, and an outside logician from India was brought in to fix the articles.
I suppose a nearmiss might be to get someone from an adjacent field to do the expert determination.
Where the arbitrators might conceivably come in is, if one party wanted to directly revert the article back to what it was before the expert made his contribution. Maybe.
Well, these are my thoughts at the moment anyway. Ask me tomorrow, and I might have a differerent opinion.
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen (aka Cimon Avaro)
----- Original Message ----- From: Jussi-Ville Heiskanen To: Wikipedia mailing list Sent: Saturday, December 06, 2003 1:46 AM Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Expert Determination anyone?
On Sat, 2003-12-06 at 06:49, Alex R. wrote: From: Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
<..smip..>
Well yes, it helps define what I wasn't talking about ;-)
I guess I was thinking more on the lines of expert determination like that in cases where a contract itself says that in case of a dispute an independent expert is brought in, and produces a binding evaluation.
Sorry, but you did not understand what I wrote if you do not think that this category is not included in arbitration. I am talking about arbitration from ancient Roman times down to modern international commercial arbitration. I am covering your very narrow example with many different possiblities of contracts. Yours is clearly included in the general discussion. Of course I have not Capitalized Words to make them sound important, but when you are talking about a phenomenon that has spanned thousands of years and involves many different cultural expressions you cannot sum everything up so that it is understood through one particular cultural expression of such a social activity.
If you carefully reread what I previously wrote you will see that it includes your example. Clearly a binding evaulation is included in the various possible scenarios and it depends, as you state, on the contract since arbitration is a contract it can be determined by the will of the parties. They can put in anything they want. They can say, let us toss a coin and if the coin lands head you win, if tails, I win. If it stays on its side, well, we will get another coin. This is exactly what I said and that is all you have said about "experts". I have tried to put them in more context so that people can see that it is not so simple as just this minor example of the roles that experts can play in contractual decision making. Excuse me for trying to be so encyclopedic. Isn't that what we do here?
Just think about it clearly before you decide that I haven't answered your question.
Alex
From: "Ray Saintonge" saintonge@telus.net
Fred Bauder wrote:
The arbitrators cannot decide any dispute that is not submitted to us,
but I
think our jurisdiction should include disputes over content in
appropriate
instances, for example, where repeated struggles to produce a NPOV
article
have failed.
Of course. Arbitrators who are narrowly focused on whether someone should be banned or not would be a waste of human resources. Based on the facts in an actual case, they should have a wide range of possible solutions available to them.
If Wikipedia's arbitration committee gets really good at what it is doing perhaps it can start soliciting arbitration cases and donate the fees for such service to Wikipedia. Online arbitration is a fast growing field. Maybe I'm dreaming out loud but arbitrators that know the law regarding fair use and its First Amendment implications on the net could provide a useful service and maybe keep those DMCA disputes out of the courts like the recent Diebold and the EFF contravention. Of course the wikiarbiters would have to be known as fair, impartial and knowledgeable, but there is little doubt that such \ will be the case in my mind.
Alex
On Fri, 5 Dec 2003, Delirium wrote:
Arbitration: *Only* tasked with reviewing potential bans of users. Does *not* have any power with regards to arbitrating the disputes over content or content presentation. Basically, this committee is what decides when someone simply cannot work within Wikipedia, after an appeal from someone who has made that claim and asked the user to be banned. The actual disputes themselves stay at the mediation level indefinitely, and are not subject to arbitration (any "voting" decision on them would be a wider vote on the talk page, presumably).
Your own statement already says it. "Indefinitely". What if I want A, someone else wants B, and mediation does not find a solution, either because one or both of us is too stubborn, or because there simply is no compromise between the two? Should we just be left alone fighting? Should we be told time and again "Come on, there should be a solution"?
I do agree that getting to a solution through mediation is the preferred solution. But there are times when it does not work. Under your scheme, it seems to me that in that case there is no choice between "just let the edit war keep going" and "Mr. A is banned".
Andre Engels
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org