Dispute resolution mailing list

[AGK-2]

>
> No, but don't you think it might be a hindrance to getting the
> dispute resolved? Which precise problem are we trying to solve here?


A mailing list need not have a specific goal (and indeed it rarely
does); rather, it is simply a forum for discussion of a given topic -
which is often quite loosely defined. Consider
this: which problem is WikiEN-l trying to solve? It's not; the list exists
simply as a place for collaboration and discussion that would not be handled
as well on-wiki. As a rule of thumb, I prefer on-wiki discussions for
consensus-building, but I *do* think this list is a good idea - if for no
other reason but to see how well it works.

On another note: to safeguard against having this list sit uselessly if we
end up discovering we don't want to use it, we could agree to consider in,
say, three months whether the list ought to be closed down or not. We
already have quite enough lists that are barely (or not) used.

AGK
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Fred Bauder-2]

> AGK wrote:
>>> Interpersonal disputes?  Again, how is a mailing list better? and
>>> what happens when only one party joins the mailing list?
>>>
>>
>>
>> My understanding is that the list would not be a forum for dispute
>> resolution, but rather a forum for discussion of dispute resolution
>> (and of
>> ongoing disputes on enwiki) - and so the problems posed by only one
>> party to
>> a disagreement subscribing wouldn't be a hinderance to operations on
>> the
>> list.
>>
>>
> No, but don't you think it might be a hindrance to getting the dispute
> resolved? Which precise problem are we trying to solve here?
>
> Charles
>

The idea is to have a mailing list for the general membership to discuss
dispute resolution, including information about ongoing controversies.
This sort of discussion already occurs on the functionaries and the
arbitrators list. This list would not have a restricted membership.

Fred



_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Marc Riddell]

>> AGK wrote:
>>>> Interpersonal disputes?  Again, how is a mailing list better? and
>>>> what happens when only one party joins the mailing list?
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> My understanding is that the list would not be a forum for dispute
>>> resolution, but rather a forum for discussion of dispute resolution
>>> (and of
>>> ongoing disputes on enwiki) - and so the problems posed by only one
>>> party to
>>> a disagreement subscribing wouldn't be a hinderance to operations on
>>> the
>>> list.
>>>
>>>
>> No, but don't you think it might be a hindrance to getting the dispute
>> resolved? Which precise problem are we trying to solve here?
>>
>> Charles
>>

on 6/27/09 10:10 AM, Fred Bauder at fredbaud@... wrote:
>
> The idea is to have a mailing list for the general membership to discuss
> dispute resolution, including information about ongoing controversies.
> This sort of discussion already occurs on the functionaries and the
> arbitrators list. This list would not have a restricted membership.
>
Would you be a bit more specific, Fred; do you mean discussing the process
of dispute resolution?

Marc


_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Fred Bauder-2]

>
>>> AGK wrote:
>>>>> Interpersonal disputes?  Again, how is a mailing list better? and
>>>>> what happens when only one party joins the mailing list?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> My understanding is that the list would not be a forum for dispute
>>>> resolution, but rather a forum for discussion of dispute resolution
>>>> (and of
>>>> ongoing disputes on enwiki) - and so the problems posed by only one
>>>> party to
>>>> a disagreement subscribing wouldn't be a hinderance to operations on
>>>> the
>>>> list.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> No, but don't you think it might be a hindrance to getting the dispute
>>> resolved? Which precise problem are we trying to solve here?
>>>
>>> Charles
>>>
> on 6/27/09 10:10 AM, Fred Bauder at fredbaud@... wrote:
>>
>> The idea is to have a mailing list for the general membership to
>> discuss
>> dispute resolution, including information about ongoing controversies.
>> This sort of discussion already occurs on the functionaries and the
>> arbitrators list. This list would not have a restricted membership.
>>
> Would you be a bit more specific, Fred; do you mean discussing the
> process
> of dispute resolution?
>
> Marc
>

In general, and whenever an issue arises. For example, one topic
frequently discussed on the other lists is Biographies of living persons,
a policy which originated with Jimbo via the arbcom list.

Fred



_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[stevertigo-2]

On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 7:38 AM, Fred Bauder <fredbaud@...> wrote:

>
> In general, and whenever an issue arises. For example, one topic
> frequently discussed on the other lists is Biographies of living persons,
> a policy which originated with Jimbo via the arbcom list.
>

I don't remember that Jimbo email. Can you give us a link, Fred?

-Stevertigo
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Risker]

2009/6/27 stevertigo <stvrtg@...>

> On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 7:38 AM, Fred Bauder <fredbaud@...>
> wrote:
>
> >
> > In general, and whenever an issue arises. For example, one topic
> > frequently discussed on the other lists is Biographies of living persons,
> > a policy which originated with Jimbo via the arbcom list.
> >
>
> I don't remember that Jimbo email. Can you give us a link, Fred?
>
> -Stevertigo
>

It's on the arbcom-L private mailing list, I suspect, Steve. A link won't be
possible, sorry.

Risker
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Thomas Dalton]

2009/6/27 stevertigo <stvrtg@...>:
>  My goal is total and complete synergy.

Synergy is when something is greater than the sum of its parts. That
is not a goal, it is a means of achieving a goal.

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Charles Matthews]

Fred Bauder wrote:

>> AGK wrote:
>>    
>>>> Interpersonal disputes?  Again, how is a mailing list better? and
>>>> what happens when only one party joins the mailing list?
>>>>
>>>>        
>>> My understanding is that the list would not be a forum for dispute
>>> resolution, but rather a forum for discussion of dispute resolution
>>> (and of
>>> ongoing disputes on enwiki) - and so the problems posed by only one
>>> party to
>>> a disagreement subscribing wouldn't be a hinderance to operations on
>>> the
>>> list.
>>>
>>>
>>>      
>> No, but don't you think it might be a hindrance to getting the dispute
>> resolved? Which precise problem are we trying to solve here?
>>
>> Charles
>>
>>    
>
> The idea is to have a mailing list for the general membership to discuss
> dispute resolution, including information about ongoing controversies.
> This sort of discussion already occurs on the functionaries and the
> arbitrators list. This list would not have a restricted membership.
>  

I see Risker has already asked for a definition of the purpose of such a
list. My feeling so far is that this is all rather [[Blind men and an
elephant]]: different people come up with different aspects of dispute
resolution they think could usefully be discussed on a list.  Such as
BLP (Fred) or any other policy matters,  or overview of current activity
(the Signpost already does this for Arbitration). You would undoubtedly
get advocacy; would you not get canvassing?  Discussion of intractable
edit wars? What is and is not pseudoscience? Second-guessing appeals and
clarifications? Speculation about matters in mediation? If it descends
to "X is a disruptive editor so something should be done" one can expect
some fairly primitive knockabout.

In my view, the problem needing a solution is to get people with an
onsite dispute to use the lower tiers of dispute resolution correctly.

Charles





_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[stevertigo-2]

On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 7:33 AM, Marc Riddell <michaeldavid86@...>wrote:

> on 6/27/09 10:10 AM, Fred Bauder at fredbaud@... wrote:
> >
> > The idea is to have a mailing list for the general membership to discuss
> > dispute resolution, including information about ongoing controversies.
> > This sort of discussion already occurs on the functionaries and the
> > arbitrators list. This list would not have a restricted membership.
> >
> Would you be a bit more specific, Fred; do you mean discussing the process
> of dispute resolution?
>

I has already been stated twice or thrice in this thread that general
discussion of "dispute resolution" itself would be within the scope of the
"dispute resolution" mailing list. Several have voiced support for the use
of this list for any range of legitimate dispute resolution issues --large
and small. AGK gave a very straightforward rebuttal to the idea that a list
need be confined in accord to narrow frameworks.

In any case it does not make too much sense to prejudice a concept with
loaded questions about its scope before it has even been tested in the
field.

-Stevertigo
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[stevertigo-2]

On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 9:56 AM, Charles Matthews <
charles.r.matthews@...> wrote:

> I see Risker has already asked for a definition of the purpose of such a
> list. My feeling so far is that this is all rather [[Blind men and an
> elephant]]: different people come up with different aspects of dispute
> resolution they think could usefully be discussed on a list.  Such as
> BLP (Fred) or any other policy matters,  or overview of current activity
> (the Signpost already does this for Arbitration). You would undoubtedly
> get advocacy; would you not get canvassing?  Discussion of intractable
> edit wars? What is and is not pseudoscience? Second-guessing appeals and
> clarifications? Speculation about matters in mediation? If it descends
> to "X is a disruptive editor so something should be done" one can expect
> some fairly primitive knockabout.
>
> In my view, the problem needing a solution is to get people with an
> onsite dispute to use the lower tiers of dispute resolution correctly.

In my view, the problem needing a solution is to get people with an
authority
over disputes to make the lower tiers of dispute resolution correct --such
that they be actually usable and that people will innately know how to "use
them.. correctly."
It is the *customer that is always right, Charles. Not the vendor.

CM: "Blind men and an elephant.. different people come up with different
aspects of dispute resolution they think could usefully be discussed on a
list" - This is exactly how mailing list technology works.

 CM: "You would undoubtedly get advocacy; would you not get canvassing?
Discussion of intractable edit wars? What is and is not pseudoscience?
Second-guessing appeals and clarifications?  Speculation about matters in
mediation?"

AGF and NOT generally answer these as well. But again, as with other stated
concerns, I do not see what value there is in being afraid of what may be
said by someone. People are intelligent enough to deal with whatever comes
up, and no amount of pre-programming is going to substitute for
intelligence.

CM: "If it descends to "X is a disruptive editor so something should be
done" one can expect some fairly primitive knockabout."

Is primitive knockabout any worse or better than organized and modernistic
knockabout?

-Stevertigo
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[stevertigo-2]

Risker wrote:

> It's on the arbcom-L private mailing list, I suspect, Steve. A link won't
>> be
>> possible, sorry.
>>
>
Yes I knew that. I was simply making an obverse point about the mis-usage of


> "private" lists for sweeping public project announcements.

>
In any case, I try to avoid closed-source technology wherever I can.

-Stevertigo
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Charles Matthews]

stevertigo wrote:
> CM: "If it descends to "X is a disruptive editor so something should
> be done" one can expect some fairly primitive knockabout."
>
> Is primitive knockabout any worse or better than organized and
> modernistic knockabout?
>
Here's a literary answer I bring out every few years: Solzhenitsyn in
"First Circle" described the use of chalk and blackboards to resolve
disputes (in the context of scientists in a "camp" supposed to design a
scrambler phone for Stalin). That apparently worked; while mailing list
threads seem designed to prove that electrons are worse than chalk. But
of course that is largely a function of the rules and moderation: in the
"First Circle" context the audience would quickly decide who was in the
right, and bring the business to a halt.

I do not have the faith you expressed in the efficacy of "mailing list
technology", an opinion perhaps not unconnected with reading three years
of ArbCom mail.  It is entirely appropriate to ask whether a list will
give good results, given the nature of lists.

Charles





_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[stevertigo-2]

On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 10:24 AM, Charles Matthews <
charles.r.matthews@...> wrote:

> Here's a literary answer I bring out every few years: Solzhenitsyn in
> "First Circle" described the use of chalk and blackboards to resolve
> disputes (in the context of scientists in a "camp" supposed to design a
> scrambler phone for Stalin). That apparently worked; while mailing list
> threads seem designed to prove that electrons are worse than chalk. But
> of course that is largely a function of the rules and moderation: in the
> "First Circle" context the audience would quickly decide who was in the
> right, and bring the business to a halt.
>
> I do not have the faith you expressed in the efficacy of "mailing list
> technology", an opinion perhaps not unconnected with reading three years
> of ArbCom mail.  It is entirely appropriate to ask whether a list will
> give good results, given the nature of lists.
>

Technically speaking, I was being a bit ironic in referring to mailing lists
as "technology [that works]." Maybe my irony was too subtle.

Solzhenitsyn. Consider that with each new context, the same ideas will be
reanimated to see if they actually work in the new context, even while they
failed in the old.

I like your point about electrons (now) being less useful than chalk (then),
as it goes to the real issue of interaction in being: Interaction in the
context of human being requires human expressiveness through gesture and..
well.. being. Electron interaction concepts can be quite different and less
conducive to the things which make beings happy.

-Stevertigo
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[stevertigo-2]

On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 10:37 AM, stevertigo <stvrtg@...> wrote:

I like your point about electrons (now) being less useful than chalk (then),
> as it goes to the real issue of interaction in being: Interaction in the
> context of human being requires human expressiveness through gesture and..
> well.. being. Electron interaction concepts can be quite different and less
> conducive to the things which make beings happy.
>

Heh. I forgot to mention "light."
Anyway, I've emailed CBass about starting up the new list.

-Stevertigo
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Risker]

As far as I know, it wasn't an announcement, it was sending up a trial
balloon amongst a known group who was likely to critique it honestly but
fairly, before taking it public.  Strikes me that happens all the time, and
doesn't necessarily have to involve foundation-related lists but could be
any group of people.

Risker

2009/6/27 stevertigo <stvrtg@...>

> Risker wrote:
>
> > It's on the arbcom-L private mailing list, I suspect, Steve. A link won't
> >> be
> >> possible, sorry.
> >>
> >
> Yes I knew that. I was simply making an obverse point about the mis-usage
> of
>
>
> > "private" lists for sweeping public project announcements.
>
> >
> In any case, I try to avoid closed-source technology wherever I can.
>
> -Stevertigo
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l@...
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Fred Bauder-2]

> As far as I know, it wasn't an announcement, it was sending up a trial
> balloon amongst a known group who was likely to critique it honestly but
> fairly, before taking it public.  Strikes me that happens all the time,
> and
> doesn't necessarily have to involve foundation-related lists but could be
> any group of people.
>
> Risker
>

There wasn't anything wrong with what was done; the problem was a running
sore and had been repeatedly discussed.

Fred


_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Fred Bauder-2]

>
> In my view, the problem needing a solution is to get people with an
> onsite dispute to use the lower tiers of dispute resolution correctly.
>
> Charles
>

Precisely the kind of thing we might discuss.

Fred



_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[stevertigo-2]

On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 11:17 AM, Risker <risker.wp@...> wrote:

> 2009/6/27 stevertigo <stvrtg@...>
> > Yes I knew that. I was simply making an obverse point about the mis-usage
> > of "private" lists for sweeping public project announcements.
> > In any case, I try to avoid closed-source technology wherever I can.
>
> As far as I know, it wasn't an announcement, it was sending up a trial
> balloon amongst a known group who was likely to critique it honestly but
> fairly, before taking it public.  Strikes me that happens all the time, and
> doesn't necessarily have to involve foundation-related lists but could be
> any group of people.

Risker saith: "it wasn't an announcement, it was sending up a trial balloon
amongst a known >group who was likely to critique it honestly but fairly"

Hm. Strikes me that a public group can critique things quite "honestly but
fairly" also. I mean, that's how this list works isn't it? Otherwise I would
never submit ideas here at all.

Risker spoketh: "Strikes me that happens all the time, and doesn't
necessarily have to involve foundation-related lists but could be any group
of people."

Hm. Don't you mean "any closed group of people"?

I mean, I'm inferring this from the context of our conversation. If, in your
statement you imply, without explicitly saying so, a change in our
conversational context from "closed groups" to "any groups,"  and I thus
just did not notice this change, please accept this is a kind of backhanded
apology.

-Stevertigo
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[stevertigo-2]

On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 2:01 PM, stevertigo <stvrtg@...> wrote:

>  please accept this is* a kind of ...
>

as*

-Stevertigo
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[AGK-2]

You know, we don't really *need* everybody's agreement to create the mailing
list. If an editor is interested is genuinely interested in setting up
DR-en-l (ugh, the abbreviations begin...), they are free to file a request
with a developer over bugzilla or over IRC. Those that wish to may join.
Time will prove who is correct: those that say the list is a good idea, or a
bad one. Let's be proactive - rather than bicker and debate endlessly (in
the exhaustive yet courteous manner that only Wikipedians are able to).
Respectfully,
AGK
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l