[WikiEN-l] Re: Broken dispute resolution mechanisms (was Reithy is a problem)

Sat Nov 6 20:37:52 UTC 2004

At 11:58 PM 11/6/2004 +1100, Tim Starling wrote:

>I think Jay's assessment of our dispute resolution process is quite 
>accurate. I spoke about how I thought the AC should proceed when it first 
>started, but I was ignored. I'll repeat my basic points now.
>
>Firstly, there is no need to require a standard of evidence analogous to a 
>criminal court. We're not sending someone to jail, we're attempting to 
>exclude them from our community. I suggested, and still recommend, a 
>standard of evidence analogous to a civil court -- that is, a balance of 
>probabilities rather than proof beyond reasonable doubt.
>
>Secondly, the AC should take a leadership role. The AC was appointed by 
>Jimbo, and now has a number of democratically elected members. It has 
>something approaching a mandate. It should make summary judgements in a 
>single sitting, and not be afraid of controversy. It should do what it 
>thinks is best for the community and make up the rules as it goes along, 
>within the bounds of community norms.
>
>Thirdly, sentences should be much, much harsher. Ban them for life and get 
>it over with. Banning only slows them down anyway, most of them will come 
>back under a different name. But at least the community will be able to 
>unite behind the AC ruling.

Hear hear! I usually avoid controversy but a little while ago as a sort of 
experiment (and as a good deed) I grabbed a random page off the top of 
requests for protection and, after protecting it, I stayed to participate 
in trying to sort out what the problem was. I figured I could approach the 
situation without stress since I didn't have any personal investment in the 
article or indeed much in the way of knowledge about it. Anyway, the 
situation eventually turned into a request for arbitration, and it took a 
full month before the arbitration committee voted on whether to accept the 
case. It's currently sitting in evidence-gathering phase.

The case isn't tremendously complex, it originated in a dispute over the 
accuracy and NPOVness of two versions of one paragraph that said very 
similar things and the subsequent accusations of policy violations were 
confined to just the article's talk page and a survey page I later set up. 
Perhaps there could be some way to fast-track such cases, a "lower court" 
with a time limit of a week or two to resolution?