[WikiEN-l] Wikiquette "committee"

Fri Oct 3 00:32:37 UTC 2003

From: "Jimmy Wales" <jwales at joey.bomis.com>
I think that Erik's suggestions here have great merit, and I'd like to
open the floor to a discussion.  Obviously, he's given a fair amount
of detail, and I may not want to adopt all of the detail that he's
suggested, but I think in broad outline we're going to have to move to
something like this.

--Jimbo

Erik Moeller wrote:

> Jimmy-

> > that email address and using the "Email this user" feature, how about
> > [[User:Mediator]]?). Right now, it's really difficult for users to deal
> > with insults and personal attacks.

Mediation has become a good tool for trying to resolve disputes.
E-bay has an online mediation service. I was thinking that
the submission standards which I drafted (I previously posted the
URL here and at Wikitech about Mav's suggestion for updating
the edit page text and linking pages) suggests not only mediation
but eventually arbitration (that may be eating too much into our
Fearless Leader's prerogatives).

If two users are fighting should it be open or should there by
a closed mediation process? Mediation is typically confidential
and only involves those directly involved in a dispute. If mediation
fails the agreement between the parties (and this can all be done by
agreement very easily because everything on Wikipedia is in
writing) then it goes to whatever dispute resolution process is
otherwise there.

The advantage of private mediation is it allows the parties to
vent and get their disputes off their chests withouf the
fear that somehow what they say will be used against them.
The ideal is that by communicating (through a third party that
is trained in conciliation and compromise) that the parties actually
understand each other better.

I think this might be useful on Wikipedia because it is such
a communal and cooperative environment. Of course the privacy
is done is a way that there is no record, but if the mediation
resolves, then there is no need for there to be a record, it is
all reduced to a mediation resolution agreement and anything
discussed during mediation is not recorded.

Arbitration can also be done fairly easily with very relaxed rules
(the ICANN/WIPO domain name dispute policy is an example
of a _very_ stripped down mediation).

In arbitration this is going to be someone who acts as an impartial
decision maker. That might be Jimbo, but there could be a committee
that has a few online members who have some training in this
area and who are prepared to see the process through. Many
arbitration proceedings also use three arbitrators. One chosen
by each side and the third chosen by the two arbitrators in
order to insure some kind of impartiality. They could also
make a decision that could be submitted to Jimbo and he
could either confirm the decision or decide to grant the
user clemency in his discretion as our personal Lord and Master.
(Hear ye, hear ye, the Court of Jimbo's Bench is now is sesssion!)

Thus, when users complain about someone there could be
a complaint officer (CO) whose job is to represent the complaints
to the mediator or arbitrator (having a group against one person
is not really fair is it?). There may also be people who volunteer
to advocate for the person whose been accused of breaking
Wikiquette to the point that they should be banned either
temporarily or permanently. That advocate would work with the
"contributor alleged to be offending"  (CATBO). The process could
be acheived by a secure private site (it is very important to
mediation for this not to be disclosed) or maybe with a telephonic
mediation session between the CABTO hiers advocate, the
complaint officer (CO) and the mediator.

If they reach an agreement, i.e. we will withdraw our complaint
if the user agrees to the following conditions, (i.e. no edits on
the following pages for  a month, no nasty accusations on
 user talk pages, etc.  then the dispute is resolved.
If they do not reach an agreement the parties prepare
for the arbitration hearing. the CO prepares a complaint that lists
all the alleged transgressions with links to page histories and
references to the Wikiquette  that has been alleged to be violated.
This is a public document and they may even be a period where
suggestions are submitted to the CO to amend the written
complaint. (this need not be a long document, just a refactored
succinct statement of all the complaints against the user).

This is deposited with Jimbo who then picks a arbitrator (different
each time and maybe also by random number generator). The
arbitrator is contacted and asked to serve. After that point all
communications with that arbitrator must be copied to the User
Advocate assigned to the case. The UA is given a deadline
to respond to the written complaint.  The UA  discusses the
choice of arbitrator with the CATBO and the CATBO can
go forward with one arbitrator or three. If three, they request
their arbitrator who has the power to  accept or decline the
appointment.  Then the two arbitrators pick a third arbitrator.

Once the UA and CATBO know the arbitrator or committee they
can write the response to the complaint. We might even
be able to get a law school to give our UAs credit to participate
in this kind of program. When I was in law school I worked
as a student advocate for the University disciplinary committee.

Anyway it could be something that is easily organized with a
few people and all the posts could be short term appointments.
The CO could be a monthly job as could the UA. You can'
also make being an arbitrator being contingent upon serving
either as a CO or UA so that they are  There could also be
a list of UAs and it is up to the CATBO to contact the UAs
and convince them to enter into the volunteer representation.
(I would consider this pro bono, in the US all lawyers are
asked to do at least 50 hours pro bono a year for the community).

This is really a very simplified version of the commercial or
international arbitration programs of  the American Arbitration
Association (see www.adr.org) Most arbitration and mediation
programs have similar structures. If the person wants to
represent themselves without an advocate, they can do that,
but there should be someone who represents the complaints
by other users of Wikiquette violations, I stress that strongly.

I think one big problem now is that someone who is accused
feels like everyone is ganging up on him or her.  Being in
such a defensive position can make one act irrationally. If
all the allegations are channeled through one person and
if the person who is accused has someone impartial to talk
to about it the debate should be more rational and reasoned.

This whole thing may sound very complex, but in practice it
will not be. The mediation procedure can be implimented with
one or a few volunteer mediators. The whole arbitration procedure
can be implemented with 6 COs (everyone volunteers to work
on that committee for two months a year) 6 arbitrators and
a few UA, so we are talking about 12-15 people tops giving
on the average a few hours a week. There are people who might
consider contributing to such a process here.  We have
at least 6 lawyer members who we could probably convince
to volunteer once and a while and there must be a few social
workers, psychologists or philosophy types who could play
a role.  some of these positions could even be voted upon.
Vote for Anthere for Arbitrator! or, Angela for User
Advoate in 2004! Erik for Complaint Committee, etc. Little Dan
for Mediator of the Month! (yes L'Dan you are old enough
to be a mediator, in the NYS school system they have a peer
mediation program where HS students mediate disputes
between students to resolve problems between students).

The advantage of creating such a type procedure is that it would
calm things down and once people complained the process
would not consume everyone's time the way it is doing now.

Jimbo would still have his foothold [[royal prerogative]]  which
he could use for temporary restraining bans or in extreme
cases where the CATBO is engaging in serious destructive
activity. he could also be appealed to to overturn a particularly
harsh decision by the arbitrators or unbanning (like [[clemency]].
T the whole process shouldn't take any longer than
the amount of time that goes into discussing these issues
right now, so it takes about a month or something before
the decision about a ban (or lifting a temp ban) comes down.

Anyway, this is just another legal beagle suggestion, and
as usual it is not "legal" advice, just a suggestion.

Alex756