On the other hand, this is the same dispute resolution procedure we use on Wikinews, where it's been effective. So while I for one am losing track of avenues one can have a bit of a moan in, this one may well be useful. Mind you, we've only needed it three times in six months on WN. Dan

I certainly wouldn't think that Wikimediation rules out eventual escalation to the arbcom. I mean, it would be stupid to guarantee that Wikimediation will fix all problems. It won't. So I guess my question would be whether you could go into Wikimediation with a sincere belief that it might help the problem. If you can, go for it. If you are just going because you want to check off the requirement for the arbcom, it's probably a lost cause. I'd personally hope the former is the case, and so encourage you to try it, but I'm not inside your head and can't tell you if you think it has any hope of working. -Snowspinner On Jul 12, 2005, at 4:45 PM, <slimvirgin(a)gmail.com> <slimvirgin(a)gmail.com> wrote:

In general I like the idea of Mediation reform, but there are some things to sort out, namely that specific proposals require some practical justification. First of all, having "Mediation" and "Wikimediation" steps in the same WP:DR process can be confusing -- where's the line with regard to roles between the two? Secondly, WP:MC is so out of the loop vis-à-vis the WP:AC, that its not proper to claim that there is a direct line of process there. I always thought it silly for MC to be an AC lite anyway. WP:MC was originally built in as an afterthought to the AC, and to assert a finer difference, some strict bounds were implemented, because 1) it was thought that mediators should be prevented from becoming like the Arbcom, and 2) so that somehow through strict WMIN (~WWIN) definitions, its role would be more defined and sensible. IMHO whats happened is that its generally been a bit confused. MC was defined relative to AC, but without a clear vision to what MC could do that would persist through WPs since quadrupling in size and users. Having no binding authority, and otherwise bogged down with a "mutual acceptance" policy (now experimentally being torched BTW), the result has been a bit disorganized, and slow. For what purpose does MC exist, then? The values promoted by the mediating role are ones which should be promoted for everyone, not just a committee. I think that weve had some things backwards with MC for a while, and I think WP would be better served with an open Mediation process. Then what should the current MC committee do? Oversee the open committee? I dont know. Ive suggested an NPOV committee would be useful, which sort of interprets NPOV issues case by case, and makes a centralized reference database for how to approach these cases. Depending on your view of disputes on WP and the disruptiveness of these toward articles and their improvement, then you can say an NPOV committee is either a great thing or waste of time. Recap: Promote open mediation / moderation principles -- consolodate specific NPOV debates to a committee. ~S I like the idea of opening up the --- Phil Sandifer <sandifer(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: ____________________________________________________ Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs

I suspect people may have missed the point of my earlier mail :-). We now have some seven or so dispute resolution channels. That's probably more than the number of editors willing to get stuck in and mediate at any one time. We're spreading a very small resource ever more thinly. We need, rather, more people getting involved. If more people responded to RfCs in a constructive, mediative manner, we'd probably see fewer cases going to 'official' mediation and even the Arbcom. Dan

It's probably worth noting that my original conception of Wikimediation was as a revamp of the RfC procedure. I decided that it would be easier to try it and then unleash it if it's successful, and let it peter off if it's not. So my hope is that we'd have some consolidation. I also hope that the mediation committee will get itself together and start working well, and we might be able to consolidate the mediation bits. -Snowspinner On Jul 13, 2005, at 9:35 AM, Dan Grey wrote: