[Wikipedia-l] Re: Arbitration/mediation on en

[Anthere]

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.