[WikiEN-l] Dispute resolution mailing list

[Charles Matthews]

Thomas Dalton wrote:
> 2009/6/27 stevertigo <stvrtg at gmail.com>:
>   
>> On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 2:41 PM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton at gmail.com>wrote:
>>
>>     
>>> 2009/6/27 stevertigo <stvrtg at gmail.com>:
>>>       
>>>> Hm. Well, as for myself, I was striving for unanimity.
>>>>         
>>> You won't get it. Dispute resolution is too controversial a topic for
>>> that. You might manage consensus on some fairly minor proposals, but I
>>> can't see unanimity happening for anything non-trivial.
>>>
>>>       
>> Well we can count on your support at least. That's called progress, in my
>> humble opinion.
>>     
>
> No, you can't. I don't support any proposal for a new mailing list for
> dispute resolution. However, I won't object to one for discussion
> *about* DR (that's the difference between consensus and unaminity -
> for consensus you just need people to not object, for unanimity you
> need their support). I do object to a mailing list where DR is
> actually intended to happen.
>
>   
Needs saying that "dispute resolution" is an ambiguous term. What it 
means in an RfC is not what it means in Arbitration. What it means in an 
edit war is an iterative process by which troublesome points get ironed 
out. What it means in Mediation is some effort to define the grounds of 
a dispute in personal terms. There is long-running dispute at 
[[humanism]] for which one solution would be to make that a dab page, 
and my recent contribution was to prompt the creation of [[humanism 
(disambiguation)]] so that we could see what such a page would look 
like. That dispute might need to be taken to [[Wikipedia:Mergers for 
discussion]], for example. About the only common factor, really, is that 
people in a dispute should be required to say in their own words what 
the content of the dispute is.

So that anywhere where people do so state their view of the actual 
content of an onsite dispute really is a locus of "dispute resolution".

Charles