From: Kelly Martin kelly.lynn.martin@gmail.com Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Voting is evil (was CheckUser policy) To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@wikipedia.org Message-ID: bd4c411e0511080908o221dd0c3pf49dc8752a348315@mail.gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
On 11/8/05, JAY JG jayjg@hotmail.com wrote:
Mediation is intermittent at best, and (from what I can tell) almost
never
achieves a positive outcome, but that's nothing compared to RfC.
Mediation is more successful than you may realize, in part because successful mediations often occur in relative obscurity. A problem that once existed went away, without an RfC or RfAr being filed; as a result, only the editors involved in the dispute know about the mediation or the resolution, and they often don't talk much about it.
I would have to agree with that. In addition, how can you judge the "success" of a mediation? Two users who are in dispute are unlikely to become best of friends quickly. I consider any mediation successful if any one of the involved parties gains even an iota more respect or understanding of the other person, or if we have progressed, even if a tiny bit, on the article matter. There are so many complex issues in mediation that it is extremely difficult to achieve "total success". Even in the rare occasion that they do occur, they are not well-publicized. It is human nature to focus on the things that need fixing; thus, we all hear about failed mediations, but we rarely hear about successful ones. (Analogy - look at the news today. It's filled with "bad" news. However, there's plenty of "good" news out there; it's just not as newsworthy.)
Note that I'm specifically not referring to mediation under the auspices of the Mediation Committee, which has, indeed, been notoriously unreliable. I'm referring more to informal mediations conducted by a variety of informal mediators who get involved via talk pages, IRC, IM, email, and any number of other methods to settle disagreements between editors amicably. I've done at least a dozen such mediations (only one since being appointed to ArbCom, though) and most of them have been at least moderately successful. The more public ones are the ones that have failed, usually because by the time the dispute is loud enough to be noticeable generally, the parties are too pissed at one another to ever settle their dispute. Many mediations merely consist of discovering an edit war and, instead of doling out punitive blocks (as so many admins on Wikipedia are wont to do), diagnosing the problem, talking to the users in question, and resolving the dispute. Often it's not hard to do this, but most of our admins never try. It's so much easier just to go "3RR, block block block".
True, the MedCom has gained a rather unfair reputation of being unreliable. I would note, though, that under our new chair, Redwolf24, we have progressed greatly. In addition, if you drop by the MedCom first, we will often provide you advice regarding your dispute - i.e. Redwolf24, acting on behalf of the MedCom, has both rejected cases and referred them to the ArbCom. This can often provide an opinion on your dispute - whether or not the dispute can be handled under the dispute resolution process or not, whether it should jump directly to the ArbCom or not, etc. Correct me if I'm wrong, Arbitrators, but you all are more likely to accept cases that have gone through Mediation or at least attempted mediation. In addition, if a mediation recommends a case to the ArbCom, policy suggests that Arbitrators accept it.
Thus, the MedCom can do more than mediation - we can be the starting stone of the dispute resolution process (besides RfCs) and can also offer a perspective on your dispute. Finally, as I stated above, even if the two parties gain an inch more of respect or understanding, I consider the mediation to be worthwhile and successful to an extent.
Article RfCs are numerous, and rarely attract the attention of more than
one
or two outside editors. Frequently they attract no outside interest at
all.
Indeed. I've only rarely seen article RfCs attract significant attention. Shameful, since articles are what Wikipedia is supposed to be all about. There are too many people who are part of Wikipedia for the community, instead of for the encyclopedia.
The problem with article RfCs is that people probably find it boring to particpate in a subject area that they are not familiar with. Under the current system, there's little to be gained by participating, and lots to lose. This must be changed.
User RfCs are a mess - in theory they are a platform for addressing and solving community issues. In practice, they are often venues for
warring
camps to air grievances, and for certain notorious individuals (who feel they don't get enough attention) to use as soapboxes for their own speechifying (i.e. yet another "outside view"). Obvious trolling is
rarely
addressed - the complainants outline their case, and a dozen or so
regular
editors vote in support. The troll provides a lengthy response, and
three
or four troll buddies/generall trolls/people with grievances against the complainant line up and vote in support of him, or add another "outside view" that has little to do with the case at hand, and is mostly about
their
own issues with the complainants. Nothing changes, and everyone goes
away
bitter.
This definitely describes several of the RfC's I've been involved in in some way lately. I agree that this serves no purpose. I'm also tired of hearing editors state "In my RfC my opinion got more endorsements than yours did, therefore I won and you must shut up." (Yes, I've heard things like this said. It's stupid.) RfC is emphatically not supposed to be a popularity contest, although I must admit it has turned into one.
True - we must remember that Wikipedia is *not* a democracy. The masses are often wrong, and RfCs often turn into a slinging battle of words, pitting one group of users against another, when both already loathe the other side before the RfC. In addition, it is extremely rare for a RfC to resolve a dispute - someone who has a RfC filed against him/her is highly unlikely to listen to the outcome of the RfC. After all, nothing's binding, and the "outcome" (i.e. "voting") is often disregarded. Thus, user RfCs are extremely ineffective.
Of course, the same can be said of RfA/RfB.
Again, true - several RfAs (not all of them or even a majority, but a significant minority of them) have recently turned into slugfests, complete with sockpuppets, POV warriors, and whatnot. And I sympatize with you on your RfB- I'm sure that such a process can be very stressful.
Kelly
It is clear that reform must be made in the dispute resolution process. It's better to do it now, rather than later. SV recently set up a page, [[WP:Dispute Resolution Reform]] ([[WP:DRR]]) - should we start consolidating discussion on one page regarding the entire dispute resolution process?
Thanks.
Flcelloguy
From Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia.
_________________________________________________________________ Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE! http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/