Dispute resolution mailing list

[Charles Matthews]

AGK wrote:
> Let's be proactive - rather than bicker and debate endlessly (in
> the exhaustive yet courteous manner that only Wikipedians are able to).
>  
You know, it doesn't actually help people to be thoughtful to label
discussion "bickering" because some comments are negative.

I happen to disagree strongly with Stevertigo's comment that "the
customer is always" right in relation to dispute resolution. If that
were true, terms like "wikilawyer" and "vexatious litigant" would be
redundant in our context. And they are not.  Anyone who really advocates
for the opening of another front in dispute resolution had better take
into account the way our mechanisms become, for some of our "customers",
mere instruments or means to their ends. The point is not to be
"proactive" for the sake of activity, but to forward the mission. Just
wait until DR-en is subject to a barrage of "evidence" not admissible in
onsite terms, but said to be crucial to someone's view of matters.

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 2:12 PM, AGK <wikiagk@...> wrote:

> 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,

Hm. Well, as for myself, I was striving for unanimity.

-Stevertigo
_______________________________________________
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@...>:
> Hm. Well, as for myself, I was striving for unanimity.

You won't get it. Dispute resolution is too controversial a topic for
that. You might manage consensus on some fairly minor proposals, but I
can't see unanimity happening for anything non-trivial.

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

[David Goodman]

Perhaps we suffer more from a superfluity of forums for discussion
than a shortage of them--with the one exception of a definitive
process of settling content issues., & I doubt a mailing list would
work for that one.
t
David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG



On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 5:37 PM, stevertigo<stvrtg@...> wrote:

> On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 2:12 PM, AGK <wikiagk@...> wrote:
>
>> 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,
>
>
> Hm. Well, as for myself, I was striving for unanimity.
>
> -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

[stevertigo-2]

On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 2:36 PM, Charles Matthews
>
>
> I happen to disagree strongly with Stevertigo's comment that "the
> customer is always" right in relation to dispute resolution. If that
> were true, terms like "wikilawyer" and "vexatious litigant" would be
> redundant in our context. And they are not.


The Arbcom's definition for "wikilawyering"? Can you show us an Arbcom case
where "wikilawyering" was a finding?


> Anyone who really advocates
> for the opening of another front in dispute resolution had better take
> into account the way our mechanisms become, for some of our "customers",
> mere instruments or means to their ends. The point is not to be
> "proactive" for the sake of activity, but to forward the mission. Just
> wait until DR-en is subject to a barrage of "evidence" not admissible in
> onsite terms, but said to be crucial to someone's view of matters.
>

Hm. Interesting points for the dres-en mailing list, Charles.

-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 2:41 PM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton@...>wrote:

> 2009/6/27 stevertigo <stvrtg@...>:
> > Hm. Well, as for myself, I was striving for unanimity.
>
> You won't get it. Dispute resolution is too controversial a topic for
> that. You might manage consensus on some fairly minor proposals, but I
> can't see unanimity happening for anything non-trivial.
>

Well we can count on your support at least. That's called progress, in my
humble opinion.

-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 2:41 PM, David Goodman <dgoodmanny@...> wrote:

> Perhaps we suffer more from a superfluity of forums for discussion
> than a shortage of them--with the one exception of a definitive
> process of settling content issues., & I doubt a mailing list would
> work for that one.
>

I agree that mailing lists are poor technology. They don't allow
corrections, renaming, etc, logical restructuring, etc. But they do have a
kind of fluidity that others do not yet have and I suppose that is why I
promote this technology's usage for dispute resolution specifically. Or
generally, if one views DR as a larger issue.

-Stevertigo
_______________________________________________
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@...>:

> On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 2:41 PM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton@...>wrote:
>
>> 2009/6/27 stevertigo <stvrtg@...>:
>> > Hm. Well, as for myself, I was striving for unanimity.
>>
>> You won't get it. Dispute resolution is too controversial a topic for
>> that. You might manage consensus on some fairly minor proposals, but I
>> can't see unanimity happening for anything non-trivial.
>>
>
> Well we can count on your support at least. That's called progress, in my
> humble opinion.

No, you can't. I don't support any proposal for a new mailing list for
dispute resolution. However, I won't object to one for discussion
*about* DR (that's the difference between consensus and unaminity -
for consensus you just need people to not object, for unanimity you
need their support). I do object to a mailing list where DR is
actually intended to happen.

_______________________________________________
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:
>> Let's be proactive - rather than bicker and debate endlessly (in
>> the exhaustive yet courteous manner that only Wikipedians are able to).
>>
> You know, it doesn't actually help people to be thoughtful to label
> discussion "bickering" because some comments are negative.
>
> I happen to disagree strongly with Stevertigo's comment that "the
> customer is always" right in relation to dispute resolution. If that
> were true, terms like "wikilawyer" and "vexatious litigant" would be
> redundant in our context. And they are not.  Anyone who really advocates
> for the opening of another front in dispute resolution had better take
> into account the way our mechanisms become, for some of our "customers",
> mere instruments or means to their ends. The point is not to be
> "proactive" for the sake of activity, but to forward the mission. Just
> wait until DR-en is subject to a barrage of "evidence" not admissible in
> onsite terms, but said to be crucial to someone's view of matters.
>
> Charles
>

It's time to introduce the hoi polloi to the crushing burdens born by the
arbitration committee.

Fred



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

[Emily Monroe]

Just to add my voice in the conversation...

I also don't think it's a good idea to have a mailing list to have  
dispute resolution to happen. Too much can happen. People will be  
unable or unwilling to join, etc. *About* resolution is another  
matter--I have no opinion about that.

I also find it kind of ironic that a discussion about dispute  
resolution will cause a dispute.

Emily
On Jun 27, 2009, at 4:45 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:

> 2009/6/27 stevertigo <stvrtg@...>:
>> On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 2:41 PM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton@...
>> >wrote:
>>
>>> 2009/6/27 stevertigo <stvrtg@...>:
>>>> Hm. Well, as for myself, I was striving for unanimity.
>>>
>>> You won't get it. Dispute resolution is too controversial a topic  
>>> for
>>> that. You might manage consensus on some fairly minor proposals,  
>>> but I
>>> can't see unanimity happening for anything non-trivial.
>>>
>>
>> Well we can count on your support at least. That's called progress,  
>> in my
>> humble opinion.
>
> No, you can't. I don't support any proposal for a new mailing list for
> dispute resolution. However, I won't object to one for discussion
> *about* DR (that's the difference between consensus and unaminity -
> for consensus you just need people to not object, for unanimity you
> need their support). I do object to a mailing list where DR is
> actually intended to happen.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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]

> Perhaps we suffer more from a superfluity of forums for discussion
> than a shortage of them--with the one exception of a definitive
> process of settling content issues., & I doubt a mailing list would
> work for that one.
> t
> David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG
>

Yes, nearly every talk page and noticeboard is already a dispute
resolution mechanism, way much. The list will fail unless it functions,
to a certain extent, as a clearing house of significant matters.

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]

> The Arbcom's definition for "wikilawyering"? Can you show us an Arbcom
> case
> where "wikilawyering" was a finding?
>

Sure, and it's a classic:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Benjamin_Gatti#Wikilawyering

Fred


_______________________________________________
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, it doesn't actually help people to be thoughtful to
> label discussion "bickering" because some comments are negative.


I agree, Charles. "Bicker" was poor word choice on my part. The
comments of everybody have been quite constructive, and I was not my
intention to dismiss anybody's comments (most especially when such a
dismissal would be on the grounds that their comments were not in line
with my school of thought).

I would echo my suggestion (with the exception of "bickering" ;-)) that a
proactive approach is needed to break what seems to be the intractability of
this disagreement. Assessing whether this proposal is successful (i.e.,
whether it becomes a useful tool) would be most effectively undertaken by
actually implementing it and setting it on a trial run.

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

[Charles Matthews]

AGK wrote:
>
> I would echo my suggestion (with the exception of "bickering" ;-))
> that a proactive approach is needed to break what seems to be the
> intractability of this disagreement. Assessing whether this proposal
> is successful (i.e., whether it becomes a useful tool) would be most
> effectively undertaken by actually implementing it and setting it on a
> trial run.
I do find your approach to be a paradox, if not necessarily worthy of
Wilde. "We are all entangled in threaded discussion, but some of us are
thinking of setting up _a new mailing list_."

Charles


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

[Charles Matthews]

Thomas Dalton wrote:

> 2009/6/27 stevertigo <stvrtg@...>:
>  
>> On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 2:41 PM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton@...>wrote:
>>
>>    
>>> 2009/6/27 stevertigo <stvrtg@...>:
>>>      
>>>> Hm. Well, as for myself, I was striving for unanimity.
>>>>        
>>> You won't get it. Dispute resolution is too controversial a topic for
>>> that. You might manage consensus on some fairly minor proposals, but I
>>> can't see unanimity happening for anything non-trivial.
>>>
>>>      
>> Well we can count on your support at least. That's called progress, in my
>> humble opinion.
>>    
>
> No, you can't. I don't support any proposal for a new mailing list for
> dispute resolution. However, I won't object to one for discussion
> *about* DR (that's the difference between consensus and unaminity -
> for consensus you just need people to not object, for unanimity you
> need their support). I do object to a mailing list where DR is
> actually intended to happen.
>
>  

Needs saying that "dispute resolution" is an ambiguous term. What it
means in an RfC is not what it means in Arbitration. What it means in an
edit war is an iterative process by which troublesome points get ironed
out. What it means in Mediation is some effort to define the grounds of
a dispute in personal terms. There is long-running dispute at
[[humanism]] for which one solution would be to make that a dab page,
and my recent contribution was to prompt the creation of [[humanism
(disambiguation)]] so that we could see what such a page would look
like. That dispute might need to be taken to [[Wikipedia:Mergers for
discussion]], for example. About the only common factor, really, is that
people in a dispute should be required to say in their own words what
the content of the dispute is.

So that anywhere where people do so state their view of the actual
content of an onsite dispute really is a locus of "dispute resolution".

Charles


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

[Fred Bauder-2]

> Thomas Dalton wrote:
>> 2009/6/27 stevertigo <stvrtg@...>:
>>
>>> On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 2:41 PM, Thomas Dalton
>>> <thomas.dalton@...>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> 2009/6/27 stevertigo <stvrtg@...>:
>>>>
>>>>> Hm. Well, as for myself, I was striving for unanimity.
>>>>>
>>>> You won't get it. Dispute resolution is too controversial a topic for
>>>> that. You might manage consensus on some fairly minor proposals, but
>>>> I
>>>> can't see unanimity happening for anything non-trivial.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Well we can count on your support at least. That's called progress, in
>>> my
>>> humble opinion.
>>>
>>
>> No, you can't. I don't support any proposal for a new mailing list for
>> dispute resolution. However, I won't object to one for discussion
>> *about* DR (that's the difference between consensus and unaminity -
>> for consensus you just need people to not object, for unanimity you
>> need their support). I do object to a mailing list where DR is
>> actually intended to happen.
>>
>>
> Needs saying that "dispute resolution" is an ambiguous term. What it
> means in an RfC is not what it means in Arbitration. What it means in an
> edit war is an iterative process by which troublesome points get ironed
> out. What it means in Mediation is some effort to define the grounds of
> a dispute in personal terms. There is long-running dispute at
> [[humanism]] for which one solution would be to make that a dab page,
> and my recent contribution was to prompt the creation of [[humanism
> (disambiguation)]] so that we could see what such a page would look
> like. That dispute might need to be taken to [[Wikipedia:Mergers for
> discussion]], for example. About the only common factor, really, is that
> people in a dispute should be required to say in their own words what
> the content of the dispute is.
>
> So that anywhere where people do so state their view of the actual
> content of an onsite dispute really is a locus of "dispute resolution".
>
> Charles
>

An example of the sort of thing we might discuss on a dispute resolution
mailing list.

Fred



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

[Carcharoth]

On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 4:10 PM, Fred Bauder<fredbaud@...> wrote:

<snip>

> An example of the sort of thing we might discuss on a dispute resolution
> mailing list.

Why not discuss on this list?

Carcharoth

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

[Thomas Dalton]

2009/6/28 Carcharoth <carcharothwp@...>:
> On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 4:10 PM, Fred Bauder<fredbaud@...> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> An example of the sort of thing we might discuss on a dispute resolution
>> mailing list.
>
> Why not discuss on this list?

I agree. This list, or the village pump, would seem a perfectly
adequate place for that.

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

[Thomas Dalton]

2009/6/28 Charles Matthews <charles.r.matthews@...>:
> Needs saying that "dispute resolution" is an ambiguous term. What it
> means in an RfC is not what it means in Arbitration. What it means in an
> edit war is an iterative process by which troublesome points get ironed
> out. What it means in Mediation is some effort to define the grounds of
> a dispute in personal terms.

I don't think the term is ambiguous, it's just broad. It means the
same thing in all those contexts - an attempt to end a dispute in a
way that best serves the project. Different venues have different ways
of achieving that, but they are all trying to do the same thing.

_______________________________________________
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 2:45 PM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton@...>wrote:

> I don't support any proposal for a new mailing list for
> dispute resolution. However, I won't object to one for discussion
> *about* DR (that's the difference between consensus and unaminity -
> for consensus you just need people to not object, for unanimity you
> need their support). I do object to a mailing list where DR is
> actually intended to happen.
>

"dres-l" (see note at bottom) will at first deal with overall  dispute
resolution issues, and if specific things come up, we can point them in the
right direction on the wiki. We of course do not want to say that things
that should be dealt at Arbcom would be handled on dren-l

I understand you are under some impression that a "dres-l" list would
somehow be compromised if it dealt with specific issues. Think of it this
way: Someone in a dispute on Talk:Peace about the Peace article lead could
email the list (through a simple on-wiki interface, by the way), and say
"I've got a problem" -- dres listers could simply point them to a specific
page on Wiki, or even (gasp) help them get things done on the page itself.
Maybe even helping to resolve the conflict (less work for Arbcom), or
helping disputants file a compliant to formal DRR.

Keep in mind that while it makes sense to diversify certain processes
(cleanup, VFD/AFD, etc.) it also makes sense to integrate those things which
are too divergent and need a kind re-integration. For example, I put
together the WP:DRR page (now "Dispute resolution requests) to give people
an interface to all of the various dispute resolution processes. Its still a
mess for the simple reason that 1) each "dispute resolution" process has its
own unique rules, and submitting forms, helper templates, etc., and 2) some
of them are essentially useless: "Negotiation", (huh?) "Talk pages" (eh?),
Mediation Cabal (GMAB),  "Wikiquette" (WTF?). And note that ANI isn't even
on there. ANI is now perhaps the most central DR hub on the wiki, and its
not even considered as part of DR. "Integration" is the relevant concept.
Does anyone disagree that certain things along the lines of "integration"
would be good for DR?

So, things need to be done to DR. The valves are knocking, the timing is
off, and the temperature guage is spiking.

-Stevertigo

Note: Why not make it a general "dres-l" and let all language wikis submit?
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l