[WikiEN-l] Wikiquette "committee"

[Alex T.]

From: "Ray Saintonge" <saintonge at telus.net>
> The mediation panel should be able to recommend a ban to Jimbo or a 
> delegated person.  That recommendation could also include a length of 
> time for the ban.  If they become involved directly in the ban 
> themselves it could compromise their objectivity.

I for one would not go to a mediation panel if they were going
to recommend banning to anyone. What kind of mediation would
that be? Mediation should be independent of Jimbo (except maybe
Jimbo can be the filter for now to decide who might make a good
mediator). Also the accused user should be able to pick between
a few mediators, so they pick someone comfortable. Also at the
mediation stage having an advocate for one's position may not
be necessary, but appointing someone to represent the community's
gripe about the accused user would make the mediation manageable
so that the accused is not facing a whole bunch of accusers,
but one who takes all the complaints against that user and presents
them to the user for hiers feedback. 

The point of mediation is to try and resolve the problem amicably.
With the consent of all involved (granted the representative of
the community has some power there, but it is power to resolve
differences and stop a ban, not the power to agree to a ban,
unless the accused user also agrees and in that case, fine the
person does not want to be on Wikipedia any longer).

My proposal is  that only when mediation fails that arbitration 
kicks in and only in the context of arbitration can a ban be 
recommended.

As far as the arbitration panel (the panel is the particular three
mediators that are chosen for a particular arbitration, the rest
of the committee would have nothing to do with that arbitration)
is concerned I was suggesting that they do make a recommendation
that is reviewable by Jimbo. It would not take effect (except for
the temporary "status quo" ban to insure someone does not cause
damage to Wikipedia in the interim period where mediation and
arbitration occur).

We could decide to give Jimbo "de novo" review or just have
him be like an appeal court that either upholds or overturns 
a ban decision. It would then be implemented by the powers
that be. He could always retain the pardon power, i.e. on his
last day in office he could pardon the 140 banned contributors
who gave Wikimedia a lot of money [illusion to Bill Clinton ;-)]

I hope that is clear, but I think it is really important to get this
distinction between mediation and arbitration straight. That
is the way that the process can be made most effective and
the transaction cost to Wikipedia volunteers kept to a minimum.
This is a fairly standard process I try to put a mediation and
an arbitration clause in most contracts I draft as it makes sense
from a practical point of view (some lawyers who like to drag
their clients into litigation are very much against such clauses).

So now I am writing shorter emails, but more of them! I guess I
thought putting it all in one email would make it clear, but it
is too much information for someone who is not involved in these
kinds of issues on a daily basis (a lot of being a lawyer is about
mediation or arbitration, it is much more common than litigation).

Alex756