Re: Wikibook User Arbitration

John McC wrote:

>I don't object to either oversight or arbitration (in
>fact I think both are necessary), but the format here
>is truly appalling. For one thing, the
>"plaintiff/defendant" structure is unnecessarily
>hostile, made even more so because it's really unclear
>who the plaintiffs and defendants are. Are we
>reviewing my block? Panic's behavior? If (as it seems)
>we are reviewing Panic's behavior, it seems a bit
>strange to name me as the "plaintiff": I'm not
>involved in an editorial dispute with Panic... my role
>has been as a mediator and later arbitrator of a
>dispute that's been going on for years without any
>previous arbitration of constructive mediation.
>
>Worse, this has devolved into what looks more like an
>inquisition than anything else. 
>

What I've done here is turn this into a formal debate.  While prehaps we 
can change the terms "plaintiff" and "defendant", the purpose here is to 
allow everybody to air their concerns and grievences in a public manner 
that can be reviewed later on by all parties involved, and by those 
chared with oversight of this project, including other administrators, 
stewards, and ultimately the WMF board of trustees.  Without this 
information being collected, nobody can possibly really know what has 
happened without a very tedious investigation.

A key part of this is also to "equalize" the situation between 
administrator and registered user.  Normally an admin is sitting in a 
very much stronger position, particularly when it gets to edit wars.  By 
having a formal setting like this, everybody can spill their guts out 
and try to explain what is going on without fear of reprisals from the 
other parties involved.

This format also gives a cooling off of the issues at hand as well, as 
it is completely removed from the content where the edit war is taking 
place.  Far from being an inquisition, what this is trying to do is to 
find the truth about what is going on.  It is also forcing the parties 
involved to put to words their emotions, and try to stick to the facts 
rather than wear their emotions on their sleeves.  This would only be 
related to the [[w:Spanish Inquisition]] if it were set up in such a 
manner that Panic had no opportunity to defend his actions at all, nor 
allow those sympathetic to his point of view to support him.  Nor is 
this a witch hunt to go after SB Johnny either.

While I intend to also add my opinion on this whole issue, what I'm 
trying to do is allow the two parties involved to come up with a 
concensus on the ultimate course of actions after they have said their 
piece.  Only if there is a strong disgreement on the ultimate course of 
action is a formal arbitration decision going to be made, and even that 
is available to appeal and reversal.

If you have a reasonable alternative, I am willing to hear about it. 
 Mind you, the reason why this seems like a judicial proceeding is 
because that is a format that has worked to resolve political disputes 
for litterally thousands of years, and is something I'm drawing upon to 
help out in this situation.  I'm also trying deliberately to set this up 
so that when it is ever invoked again, that it won't be taken lightly 
and will be something that all parties will want to avoid if at all 
possible.

>
>What we will suffer in the long term is an even
>stronger reticence on the part of administrators to
>get involved in content disputes (I for one will
>certainly say "no" next time around). This particular
>dispute had gone on unaddressed for far longer than it
>should have been, and while this arbitration might end
>up bringing a resolution to this particular issue,
>it's going to make it a lot harder to address the next
>one. 
>
>
>--- Andrew Whitworth <[email protected]> wrote:
>
One huge problem that administrators face at all times when an edit war 
is taking place is that we are also very much human.  It is very easy to 
get caught up in the moment and "choose sides", in effect becoming a 
party in the dispute rather than somebody who is seeking a resolution. 
 You should be reluctant to try and get embroiled in such a manner. 
 When it was requested that I try to come in and mediate this particular 
issue, I felt it had reached the point that the more information method 
of writing on the user talk page and trying to find a bit of middle 
ground would have been completely ineffective and that going that route 
would have put me in the position of being yet another voice in the 
fight but no more.  And perhaps turning the fight from a mere edit war 
to a full all out wheel war.

That is clearly something I want to avoid.

I hope that when all is said and done, that this will actually 
strengthen the position of administrators, as it will give us an 
additional "tool" to fall back upon when editorial disputes are starting 
to get out of hand.  As an administrator, you can say "if you don't like 
my suggestion, take it [[Wikibooks:Arbitration|here]] instead." 
 Hopefully those who have a cool head will think twice about that 
suggestion and try to resolve the issue first.

-- 
Robert Scott Horning