On Wed, 18 Feb 2004, Poor, Edmund W wrote:
I think the Mediation Committee can also refer a
matter to arbitration.
At least it /said/ it can.
Do we need to change the rules?
Should it be just any user who can refer a matter to the arbitration
committee? Should the A.C. then decide what the next step is? How about:
* temp ban
* refer to Mediation Committee
* hear the case
Must there be a prescribed order? A lot of us don't want to wait 2 whole
weeks! Even 5 days seems like a lifetime around here...
The step involving the Mediation is not going to work.
1. The Label "Committee" is something of a misnomer; the members do not meet
as a group or decide things as a group. It's a list of people who are
willing to mediate.
2. The function of the chairman of the Committee is more to act as a go-between
between the Committee's members & anyone desiring mediation. To expect the
chair to receive requests for arbitration, investigate, then forward them, I
feel, is not something the chair should be involved in. (Although the chair
may have a place in the process if the mediation process broke down due to
lack of participation by one of the parties.)
3. To ask any member of the Mediation Committee to do the same is also not
right. Using a personal example, as a member of the Mediation Committee with
this privilege, were to receive a request to send Wik to arbitration, I'd
forward it in a hearbeat, based on my own opinion of him. If it were someone
else, I'd be more inclined to investigate matters to determine whether
Mediation is not the best solution. Some Wikipedians I would probably
decline to refer to Arbitration based on my own opinion of that Wikipedian.
Can everyone be comfortable with such possible expressions of prejudice?
Rather, I think what is needed are several pathways to Arbitration:
* Failure of Mediation is obviously one path.
* Requests from a given number of Wikipedians in good standing should be
another. (By this, say 10 Wikipedians want me, Llywrch, investigated by
the committee for my behavior concerning the [[Paleosiberian Literature]]
article. And by "Wikipedians in good standing" I'm thinking of some minimum
qualification that 95% of us should meet -- having a registered username,
currently active in Wikipedia, & not currently involved as a subject in
either Mediation or Arbitration.)
* A grandfather clause. By this, I am referring to a number of urgent conflicts
that were underway before January 1, 2004. I believe prompt attention to
these conflicts would help bring credibility to the process. We can't just
wipe the slate clean as of that date; we are currently having problems
now due to behaviors from then.
Geoff