[WikiEN-l] Wikiquette "committee"

Fri Oct 3 00:35:33 UTC 2003

I say we should have such a committe. This would allow us to decide on bans
more quickly where they are needed, as well as making the process more open
to the at-large community.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Alex R." <alex756 at nyc.rr.com>
To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2003 5:32 PM
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikiquette "committee"


> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l