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

Thu Nov 20 22:29:04 UTC 2003

I read you mail/proposition with interest Erik, but I
have a few questions on points which are not clear to
me. I ask in case I should have to ask for mediation
again one day, which I do not plan on an article
anyway :-)

>That being said, I think nominations should be
public, >and should be voted  
>on, because this is really a matter where community
>opinion matters. We  
>don't need consensus, but we need something very
>roughly like it 
>85-90%  
>support). Basically like the Requests for Adminship
>page.

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 ?

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 ?

Who call the team ?

May the team (or one member of the team) be somehow
"forced" onto a unwilling partisan ? What will happen
if one of the opponent is not willing to see the case
be handled by someone with whom he had some
disagreement sooner ?

>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 ?

>This includes most of the decisions Jimbo usually
>makes that relate to the  
>enforcement of Wikipedia policy through bans,
warnings >etc. But of course they should try to avoid
using >these measures when possible.

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 ?

The team  
>should be large enough so that some members are
always >available within a  
>span of 3 or 4 days.

Yes, of course. Probably available much sooner is
best.

>They could use a closed mailing list, mediation-l,
>where non-members can only post but not read. Their
>decisions would be posted on the appropriate  
>talk page. Team members personally involved in a
>debate should recuse themselves for obvious reasons.
>Conflicts within the mediation team (e.g.  
>"Person <x> makes consensus decisions impossible")
>should be resolved  mostly internally, with Jimbo's
>help, and taken public if necessary.

Here, I think this is really bad. Wikipedia process
should be transparent. Not hidden. It is wrong that
such decisions are not public.

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.

Also, Erik, you know quite well the 4 people you
propose, because you and them have been there for a
long time. But I fear that not only old hands are
included in conflicts. Also more recent users. I have
problem conceiving that a rather recent user finding
himself in a conflict is told "here is your mediator,
trust him, talk to him, when you have said all you
wanted, if you did not agree with the opponent, he
will secretely talk about the matter with some other
people somewhere else, and perhaps you will be blocked
by their decision". Ihmo, there is something wrong
here.
Also, I fear that since they will be given the right
to ban people, I fear that other users will not have
the "right" to give their opinion on the matter (since
it will be decided on a private list). 

It is a bit as if, in the way of voting for mediator
to help with conflict, we will actually vote for those
who will take decisions for us.

If not, I understood nothing of your proposition.

>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,

Regards

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree