[WikiEN-l] Re: Time to clean out my closet.

Wed Jan 21 14:01:42 UTC 2004

On Tue, 2004-01-20 at 21:20, Anthere wrote:

    Jussi-Ville Heiskanen a Ã©crit:
    >     > Okay. I an committed. I will  post this.

    This was courageous.
    I am glad you finally left your silence.

>Thank you. I subtly dislike e-mail bc of its lack of
>immediacy; a 
>BulletinBoard would be much better.

Hi Jussi.

I entirely agree with you. Btw, Angela has started
looking for a bb to be set up yesterday night (well
today early morning :-)).

I doubly agree with you, as I had a lot of pain
accessing Wikipedia myself. I could not at all during
24 hours.
That made me double difficult, to connect to the web
site, to be able to sent you, and the five, then four,
then three, then two others mediators who did not
provided an email adress, a wikimail.
I also took time to write to Dante, to suggest him to
offer an email adress.

I just wanted to get things rolling.

It is not funny to have to go to a user page each time
you wish him to follow what is happening, especially
when the server is so slow.

For that reason, and your yesterday email actually, I
stopped doing so. I stopped forwarding emails. You may
ask to the other mediators to forward you the
discussions if you feel like it. 

So, yes, I understand you.  

<snip>
>And the conclusion I want to draw from that, is that
>we have to
>make every effort to assure that it does not fail,
but >is such
>a wonderful success that it need not, and indeed can
>not be
>revoked. Every institution that fails its charter is
a >millstone
>around the neck of further attempts at founding such
>at a later
>time.

I entirely agree with you Jussi.

>>What is the problem ?

>There is no problem. The silent observer bit was
>mostly to lend
>an enchanced perception of legitimacy to the process,
>and though
>extremely useful IMO, is _not_ at all crucial.

The silent observer is not burried :-) Ed expressed
his interest for such a process, mentionning he was
thriving on feedback.
I mentionned how teaching the experience would be.
However, I still believe that the system might help
legitimacy as well, if we are two or three people
together, to reinforce one another, to help, to
collaborate, to keep the mediator on the right tracks.

But a silent one, who would report to the big chief
Jimbo, as if were were under constant supervision like
kids ? No thank you. I do not believe in this kind of
operation.

<snip>

>My latest bout of inactivity was brought on by a
>juxtaposition
>of the server problems, and some personal matters
>which I will
>not speak on publicly.

I am glad it was not a silence on purpose :-)

>Ed
>(This was a problem BTW, that the proposed silent
>observer institution
>would have partially addresssed.)

The silent observer is not burried as I said above :-)
Ed in particular was interested in it. Nothing is ever
lost :-)

>The ideal situation would be such that we have a
group >of mediators
>with which it would be possible to just draw lots for
>the mediation
>assignment, and always come up with a winner. This
>means that the 
>question of who we have on the mediation committee is
>not totally
>irrelevant.

True. Which is why I think my suggestion to only be
involved with cases that implicated non native english
people, was not entirely irrelevant, as I had the
feeling I could understand how far in conflict a
misunderstanding could lead.

Since you ask that I should not do that, I wonder who
will in case there is need to take care of a conflict,
if there is one, with someone hardly speaking a word
of english, but speaking french, or someone like
HeKeIsDa a few weeks ago on meta.

Are you claiming that you would be more relevant in
this case than I ?

    > Anthere: I would be much more comfortable about
contributing
    > in the meditiation group, if you were not a
member of it!
    >     > PLEASE anthere, think long before getting
offended by the
    > previous sentence! I think you can perform a
valuable part
    > in forming the limitations of the mediation
group, but I
    > honestly don't see that you can offer anything
positive to
    > it's developement as a member of it.

    I am currently failing to see how I could not be
offended by this 
    statement, as you provide no justification for
such a comment. In 
any 
    cases, you might have noticed that my name was not
in the current 
list.
    So, feel free to join if this is the main point
stopping you.
    If the developpement of such a project shall be
impaired by my 
presence, 
    I will certainly stop participating in it. I think
I gave my 
reasons for 
      participating to its development, and those who
read them should 
    understand the limits it will inherently put.

Okay. In clarification, In _most_emphatically_ endorse
your input
into the development of the mediation process, without
which the 
institution would be at an even more half-finished
state than it is
currently. What I meant was just to express plainly
that you should
not actually be chosen as an actual mediator in any
disputes. The 
justification for this is purely your command of
english, and no
other factor. 

Part of the problem here lies in the unfinished and
unclear mandate 
of the mediation & arbitration committees. Are they to
be purely actors
in the process of wikipedia editing, or are they
eventually to 
develop organically into political bodies of their own
right?

The matter of arbitrators being selected by a vote
yearly, would
suggest that morphing into a political actor is not
totally 
untenable.

If the mediation committee changes into a political
body whose function
is not solely to effect acts of mediation, your
presence on it would be
most valuable, but I personally doubt whether it would
be useful for it
to thus transform itself.

I thank you for that statement. But do you really
think I am not aware of that, of the fact my poor
english puts obvious limitations to what I can do ? Do
you really think other mediators do not know that
also? And that editors noticed nothing ? Seriously ?
:)

I do deeply think that editors and mediators should
have their say in who should be part of the committee.
However, I do not think that just a person has a veto
power (but Jimbo, or perhaps the chair leader though
that is controversial). And none of the last
discussions on the topic suggested so. Consequently, I
do not consider you thinking I must not be part of it
is enough to automatically exclude me. However, since
you raised the topic, and question the wiseness of my
participation, I suppose the discussion should be
public.

So, to defend my point, here is what I have said from
the very beginning (that is, to Jimbo privately in
october, in a mail I sent to the list in december, and
in the past days committee discussions). I hope this
is the last time. I'll do it very short.
We need mediation on the french wikipedia. And imho
the english wikipedia needs a new
mediation/arbitration process.
I am interested in mediation itself. I want to learn
more about it. On the french wikipedia, I only learn
by trial and errors. Here, I can learn by watching
people practicing it, and discussing it with them. I
can also perhaps give ideas and make other people
benefit of what I know myself. I want to help set the
process itself.
When it is done, I want to make mediation a true
activity on fr:, not what it is considered right now :
troll feeding.
I am perfectly aware of my limitations, which is why I
mentionned I could help in conflicts involving
non-native people, in particular french. I hope you
will agree that if french speaking people are
involved, my being french might help clearing
misunderstandings. I suppose I could also help a bit
for conflicts based on contents in topics I know well.
And that is probably all about it.

What is the big deal ?

Mediators whom people think can't help, just won't be
picked up, neither chosen by disputants, nor suggested
by other mediators. And at any time, a disputant may
refuse a mediator who is suggested to him.

So where is the problem ? I do not speak well enough
=> My help is not requested => I am not messing things
=> you should not feel like I will damage the whole
process

Here is a thought I propose to you.
2 days ago, someone reminded me of this

"I want to be part of the solution, not part of the
problem"

Let's focus on this Cimon please. We are all
different, and we will ever stay different. We are not
good in everything. But we all are good in at least
one thing. Each of us brings a different piece to the
puzzle. I know I am great at bugging people :-) (ask
Erik in doubt).
More seriously, what about considering mediation not
*just* as a distinguishable unit, one mediator, two
disputants, but rather as a more holistic process,
where each individual has a different input ? You
mention that you do not know one, do not trust
another, can't figure what a third is doing here,
plainly state that the existence of a forth might be
preventing you to join etc...

But have you considered that it is the whole that
might be the best ? That these are our different
personnalities which will perhaps make a difference ?
That is not seeing us as separated mediators, but just
as people who want things to work better ? And who
want to do that together ?

    > Jussi-Ville Heiskanen (aka Cimon Avaro)

    I am sorry you feel so disinchanted

>>I am sorry if I left you with the impression that I
>>am disenchanted.
>This is not the case at all. Although the mediation &
>arbitration
>process and institutions have had bit of a handbrake
>start, I am
>sure the motor will start revving on all cylinders
>eventually.

To your opinion, who tried to get it started precisely
?

>With the greatest of respect; as always,

>Jussi-Ville Heiskanen (aka Cimon Avaro)

Let's meet in front of our groupleader then Cimon :-)

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes
http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus