Re: Wikibook User Arbitration

Robert, you really don't understand this situation.
Allow me to clarify:

1. I don't know anything about C++, and am not a
contributor to that book. My involvement was as a
moderator. 
2. My request that someone else take over the
arbitration was made because I'm tired of doing it.
This has been going on for months now.

An moderator should feel free to pass the reins to
another moderator if he or she feels the burden has
become more that they want to take on. He or she
should not be dragged through the mud. I don't object
to your overturning the block... my hope was that
whether or not Panic is blocked, reformed, etc. would
simply not be my problem any more. 

Another administrator had agreed to take the case, but
you insisted that you be the arbitrator instead. I
said that was fine, since honestly i don't care who's
doing it, as long as it's not me. 

I'm an unpaid volunteer, and I did what I did
(moderate) because it was going on for a very long
time and no-one else had stepped in. I (or anyone
else) should feel free to walk away from these
situations. What I was asking for was a clean break,
with the situation in someone else's hands. What's
happened since then is atrocious. 


--- Robert Scott Horning <[email protected]>
wrote:

> 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Textbook-l mailing list
> [email protected]
>
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/textbook-l
> 


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com