[WikiEN-l] Re: Arbitration Commitee Seeking Comment

[Anthere]

MacGyverMagic/Mgm a écrit:
> On 6/5/05, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>>On 6/4/05, David Gerard <fun at thingy.apana.org.au> wrote:
>>
>>>For an example, check the WMC vs Cortonin case. Can 
>>>content be decided by which side explodes in frustration first? > >I submit that this may not be the best of ideas.
>>
> 
>>>A lot of it is that the AC has been too effective; so people start dealing
>>>with others as problems to be dealt with, with the AC at the end of the
>>>process. This is not a good attitude either.
>>
> 
> That's why I want to breath new life into the Mediation Committee. I
> think Mediation shouldn't be another step towards banning either party
> but a genuine effort at resolving the problem.
> 
> --Mgm

I think the main issue with the MC is somehow its bureaucratic level. I 
realise now that an issue is more likely to be resolved amiably when

* it is quickly handled, before the escalation occur and anger gets so 
high editors are no more willing to compromise. The necessity of having 
to make an official request, then wait with no one stepping is very 
detrimental to the whole process. I think it works better when editors 
contact directly a person.

* people know and feel confortable to the one they are asking help. 
And... that is a bit unfortunate to say, but I fear this is true : they 
like the person to have a sort of authority. They come to the mediator 
thinking the mediator can make the decision for them... and it may be 
the mediator job to make it happen that the editors themselves come to 
the agreement.

If Linuxbeak is reading this, I think he will understand what I mean. I 
think he asked help of an "arbitrator" to resolve his tripartite problem 
between himself, the community and the CAP. But in the end, all what I 
did is just to talk with him, clarify certain things, suggested 
solutions...  However, He made the decision himself. So, it was only the 
job of a mediator/facilitator after all.