John McC wrote:
I don't object to either oversight or arbitration
(in
fact I think both are necessary), but the format here
is truly appalling. For one thing, the
"plaintiff/defendant" structure is unnecessarily
hostile, made even more so because it's really unclear
who the plaintiffs and defendants are. Are we
reviewing my block? Panic's behavior? If (as it seems)
we are reviewing Panic's behavior, it seems a bit
strange to name me as the "plaintiff": I'm not
involved in an editorial dispute with Panic... my role
has been as a mediator and later arbitrator of a
dispute that's been going on for years without any
previous arbitration of constructive mediation.
Worse, this has devolved into what looks more like an
inquisition than anything else.
What I've done here is turn this into a formal debate. While prehaps we
can change the terms "plaintiff" and "defendant", the purpose here is
to
allow everybody to air their concerns and grievences in a public manner
that can be reviewed later on by all parties involved, and by those
chared with oversight of this project, including other administrators,
stewards, and ultimately the WMF board of trustees. Without this
information being collected, nobody can possibly really know what has
happened without a very tedious investigation.
A key part of this is also to "equalize" the situation between
administrator and registered user. Normally an admin is sitting in a
very much stronger position, particularly when it gets to edit wars. By
having a formal setting like this, everybody can spill their guts out
and try to explain what is going on without fear of reprisals from the
other parties involved.
This format also gives a cooling off of the issues at hand as well, as
it is completely removed from the content where the edit war is taking
place. Far from being an inquisition, what this is trying to do is to
find the truth about what is going on. It is also forcing the parties
involved to put to words their emotions, and try to stick to the facts
rather than wear their emotions on their sleeves. This would only be
related to the [[w:Spanish Inquisition]] if it were set up in such a
manner that Panic had no opportunity to defend his actions at all, nor
allow those sympathetic to his point of view to support him. Nor is
this a witch hunt to go after SB Johnny either.
While I intend to also add my opinion on this whole issue, what I'm
trying to do is allow the two parties involved to come up with a
concensus on the ultimate course of actions after they have said their
piece. Only if there is a strong disgreement on the ultimate course of
action is a formal arbitration decision going to be made, and even that
is available to appeal and reversal.
If you have a reasonable alternative, I am willing to hear about it.
Mind you, the reason why this seems like a judicial proceeding is
because that is a format that has worked to resolve political disputes
for litterally thousands of years, and is something I'm drawing upon to
help out in this situation. I'm also trying deliberately to set this up
so that when it is ever invoked again, that it won't be taken lightly
and will be something that all parties will want to avoid if at all
possible.
What we will suffer in the long term is an even
stronger reticence on the part of administrators to
get involved in content disputes (I for one will
certainly say "no" next time around). This particular
dispute had gone on unaddressed for far longer than it
should have been, and while this arbitration might end
up bringing a resolution to this particular issue,
it's going to make it a lot harder to address the next
one.
--- Andrew Whitworth <wknight8111(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
One huge problem that administrators face at all times when an edit war
is taking place is that we are also very much human. It is very easy to
get caught up in the moment and "choose sides", in effect becoming a
party in the dispute rather than somebody who is seeking a resolution.
You should be reluctant to try and get embroiled in such a manner.
When it was requested that I try to come in and mediate this particular
issue, I felt it had reached the point that the more information method
of writing on the user talk page and trying to find a bit of middle
ground would have been completely ineffective and that going that route
would have put me in the position of being yet another voice in the
fight but no more. And perhaps turning the fight from a mere edit war
to a full all out wheel war.
That is clearly something I want to avoid.
I hope that when all is said and done, that this will actually
strengthen the position of administrators, as it will give us an
additional "tool" to fall back upon when editorial disputes are starting
to get out of hand. As an administrator, you can say "if you don't like
my suggestion, take it [[Wikibooks:Arbitration|here]] instead."
Hopefully those who have a cool head will think twice about that
suggestion and try to resolve the issue first.
--
Robert Scott Horning