[WikiEN-l] Wikiquette "committee"

Sat Oct 4 05:32:43 UTC 2003

Alex T. wrote:

>From: "Ray Saintonge" <saintonge at telus.net>
>
>>The mediation panel should be able to recommend a ban to Jimbo or a 
>>delegated person.  That recommendation could also include a length of 
>>time for the ban.  If they become involved directly in the ban 
>>themselves it could compromise their objectivity.
>>
>I for one would not go to a mediation panel if they were going
>to recommend banning to anyone. What kind of mediation would
>that be? Mediation should be independent of Jimbo (except maybe
>Jimbo can be the filter for now to decide who might make a good
>mediator). Also the accused user should be able to pick between
>a few mediators, so they pick someone comfortable. Also at the
>mediation stage having an advocate for one's position may not
>be necessary, but appointing someone to represent the community's
>gripe about the accused user would make the mediation manageable
>so that the accused is not facing a whole bunch of accusers,
>but one who takes all the complaints against that user and presents
>them to the user for hiers feedback. 
>
>The point of mediation is to try and resolve the problem amicably.
>With the consent of all involved (granted the representative of
>the community has some power there, but it is power to resolve
>differences and stop a ban, not the power to agree to a ban,
>unless the accused user also agrees and in that case, fine the
>person does not want to be on Wikipedia any longer).
>
I have no problem with this.  What you quoted from me above was written 
before your post making the distinction between mediation and 
arbitration.  Having someone who is representative of the accusers makes 
sense, but there is a potential can of worms when the accusers start 
arguing among themselves about who best represents their POV. :-)   
Identifying the accused should seldom be a problem.

>My proposal is  that only when mediation fails that arbitration 
>kicks in and only in the context of arbitration can a ban be 
>recommended.
>
>As far as the arbitration panel (the panel is the particular three
>mediators that are chosen for a particular arbitration, the rest
>of the committee would have nothing to do with that arbitration)
>is concerned I was suggesting that they do make a recommendation
>that is reviewable by Jimbo. It would not take effect (except for
>the temporary "status quo" ban to insure someone does not cause
>damage to Wikipedia in the interim period where mediation and
>arbitration occur).
>
One possibility is that the accuser and accused would each choose one of 
the arbitrators from the list of those available.  The first two could 
chose the third one together, or he could be named by Jimbo.  . . . or 
is that too cumbersome?  A mediator would be disqualified from being an 
arbitrator in the same case.

In many of these situations we will probably need some basic rules of 
evidence and procedure.  Thus, when a person makes an accusation he 
should carry a certain burden of proof.  It is his obligation to cite 
the pages where the offences have taken place.  No mediator or 
arbitrator should be required to look at anything other than the stated 
sites to help establish the accuser's case.

>We could decide to give Jimbo "de novo" review or just have
>him be like an appeal court that either upholds or overturns 
>a ban decision. It would then be implemented by the powers
>that be. He could always retain the pardon power, i.e. on his
>last day in office he could pardon the 140 banned contributors
>who gave Wikimedia a lot of money [illusion to Bill Clinton ;-)]
>
Illusion?  Had this come from a person with poor language skills I would 
dismiss it as a typo.  From Alex I can't be sure if the ambiguity was 
intended.

I'm confident that Jimbo would use his royal prerogative wisely and 
parsimoniously.  To do otherwise would undermine the process that we are 
discussing.

>I hope that is clear, but I think it is really important to get this
>distinction between mediation and arbitration straight. That
>is the way that the process can be made most effective and
>the transaction cost to Wikipedia volunteers kept to a minimum.
>This is a fairly standard process I try to put a mediation and
>an arbitration clause in most contracts I draft as it makes sense
>from a practical point of view (some lawyers who like to drag
>their clients into litigation are very much against such clauses).
>
Lawyers dragging their clients into litigation here would not find it 
cost effective.  The pockets here are not just not deep; they're sewn shut.

>So now I am writing shorter emails, but more of them! I guess I
>thought putting it all in one email would make it clear, but it
>is too much information for someone who is not involved in these
>kinds of issues on a daily basis (a lot of being a lawyer is about
>mediation or arbitration, it is much more common than litigation).
>
Good point about the shorter emails!

Ec