[WikiEN-l] Where went the difference between mediator and arbitrator ?

Thu Nov 20 23:06:35 UTC 2003

From: "Anthere" <anthere8 at yahoo.com>
To: <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>

<...snip...> 

Does that mean that only those listed on the mediator
> list will be authorized to act as mediator, or may
> other people go on just as usual ?

Mediation is a consensual process, there is nothing stopping
two editors who are at loggerheads from asking someone to
mediate their differences and try to come to a consensual
conclusion.

> If other people are still authorized to mediate, when
> (or how) is it decided that a non-registered mediator
> can go on, or that he should drop the matter to leave
> room to the official team ?

I think that what is being suggested is not really mediation,
but it is arbitration, called mediation.

> Who call the team ?

Once again, in some contexts mediators can be chosen or
even authorized to mediate (some courts have mediation
programs), but that never stops parties who cannot
agree from mediating and coming to a compromise.

<...snip..> 
> >The mediation team should, in my opinion, be allowed
> >to make *binding*  
> >decisions by consensus, and recommendations to Jimbo
> >by majority vote.  
>
> I remember Alex explanations of the difference between
> mediator and arbitrator. Is not what you suggest
> "arbitration" ? If so, could it not have an
> unfavorable impact on the mediation act itself that
> mediation and arbitration are confused ?
> 
> Will the partisan feel confortable with the mediator
> if he knows this one is gonna judge him somehow,
> rather than just trying to improve communication with
> the opponents ?

Once again, yes Anthere, you are right, this is really arbitration,
not mediation. It might be called mediation arbitration where
the mediator turns into an arbiter at some point, but calling
it mediation is not only confusing, I think it is misleading to
someone who comes upon this process for the first time (i.e.
a newbie who finds hierself in what s/he thinks is mediation,
only to discover, much too late, that it is arbitration).

 <...snip...>

> So, when we will vote for mediator names, we will a
> bit vote in reality for those who will make banning
> decisions ?
> 
> I am not excited in this idea very much. I give an
> example : let's say I am in an edit war with someone,
> and Vicky comes along to try to help us both. I do not
> know Vicky really; Why should I feel confident with
> her, trying to work with her, if I know at the same
> time she has the power to ban me if I am relunctant to
> accept her proposition ?

Good point, it is really arbitration in this scenario, and in
such a case you shouuld at least have some ability to chose
amongst a few arbitrators, or, if not, they should be well
qualified to fulfil their roles as arbitrators and should be
appointed through some legitimate process.

<..snip..>

> That an arbitration team render "justice" privately is
> already something I consider wrong. Judgements should
> be public. That this team be also a mediation team at
> the same time is wrong as well to my opinion. Because
> mediation rely first of all on trust. What you propose
> is not likely to generate trust I fear.

Hear, hear (or here, here!).

<...snip...>
> >So there you have it -- an actual plan that can be
> >implemented within  
> >days. All it needs is some kind of official go-ahead,
> >and we can start  
> >voting/discussing who we want to put in those seats.
> I >wonder if anyone  
> >actually reads my mails this far or if I could just
> >write gibberish at  
> >this point. The quick brown fox jumped over the
> yellow >chicken and 
> >caused  
> >a warp core breach in the process.
> 
> Changing the power structure in a matter of days ? Is
> not that a bit quick ?
> 
> I think there are *very* good points in the way you
> laid out the needs; people suggested are good. But I
> think the idea of moving toward a structure where 4/5
> people hold power while others do not, and where
> decisions are taken with no transparency is not.
> 
> >Cordially,

Mediation and arbitration are legal issues, or at least they
are issues that have an essential legal component (i.e. they
effect the legal rights of volunteer/editors/members of the
Wikimedia community. As such IMHO they should be
discussed on the wikilegal-l list, I am cross posting this
there.

Alex756 concurs with Anthere