Wikibooks talk:Requests for Comments

Mediation and Arbitration
Until now (famous last words) there hasn't been a real need for mediation beyond very informal mediation and airing grievances on the Staff Lounge (or occasionally spilling over onto Textbook-l). In the very few situations that it has gone completely out of control, at least in the past, Jimbo or somebody else came in to help out. I will point out, however, that the stewards in particular want to stay completely away from Wikibooks politics as much as absoltutely possible and IMHO have yet to realistically come in to help even when their assistance has been formally requested.

Formal Arbitration has never been done at all.... even by Jimbo (here on Wikibooks). At least unless you count the issues regarding the video game guides and removal of some content by Jimbo as arbitration, but it wasn't to settle any disputes. Jimbo simply came into Wikibooks and set out some decrees of what he thought Wikibooks should be looking like.

In some ways, I hope that we can continue this general record of trying to resolve issues by concensus. I know that there is on a (very few) rare situations that Wikibooks has been a case of the "last user standing wins" kind of mentality, but on the whole there has been an acceptance of compromise even when not all users agree on the same course of action. While I havn't always been complacent and sometimes very vocal on talk pages, I will accept decisions made that don't go my way. I certainly won't revert changes made to project pages unless there is a very strong concensus on a course of action.

In this regard, I would even suggest (perhaps very strongly) that the sections on this page regarding mediation and arbitration be simply removed for this reason. I am willing to listen to debate about this, and I'm not going to perform that seemingly drastic action. Still, we need to be cautious to jump here too fast to grow something that discourages cooperation and compromise.

As far as any time limits are concerned: Wikibooks is not Wikipedia. It seems as though just about any decision on Wikipedia is resolved in "about a week". About every page on Wikipedia is archived "in about a week", and AfD discussions are usually closed "in about a week". That seems to be the average attention span of Wikipedians, as anything else said is ancient news. Given the nature of the project on Wikipedia, that is fine there, and I'm not out to change any of those practice there.

The problem here is that the very nature of Wikibooks takes quite a bit more concentration and not all Wikibookians necessarily "come up for air" and read discussion fora like Staff Lounge or policy pages. At least on a semi-daily basis. That and I've strongly suggested that to help keep Wikibooks growing, not to mention the comparatively fewer active users, that discussions should be allowed to run much longer. Indeed if you look at the Staff Lounge there are discussions sometimes a couple of months old, as well as on the VfD pages, but still considered active discussions.

I strongly believe that such longer term attitudes need to prevail among arbitrators as well, where a chance to achieve compromise can be made first well before the arbitrators need to come into the fray. A week to come to a decision is way too short in terms of a context for Wikibooks, and I would strongly disagree to any such time limits being used here. If there is a huge cultural difference between Wikibooks users and Wikipedians, this would have to be one of the most defining characteristics. --Rob Horning 17:42, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Robert, we are currently in a situation where consensus building has failed (and we've been there for a long time). I understand the desire not to have to use these kinds of structures, but we've been stuck for months now, and need a formal structure. I'd rather not use the SL as a forum for dispute resolution actually... that shouldn't be the first thing a new user sees. -- SB_Johnny | talk 17:45, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Coming in somewhere between you. No the lounge isn't the place for some stuff, two months is daft (apologies), that looks like a hope that one party will get bored and leave in that time.  However two weeks (one week, 21 days whatever) is equally non Wikibooks.  It amazed me when I arrived that stuff was not "finished" more quickly, however now it doesn't bother me.  In the case of VfDs (an interest of mine) there does seem a "natural" end quite often.  I'm also quite unsure of the enforceability - folks have to accept it whatever/whoever it is - could be quite divisive? -- Herby  talk thyme 18:00, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree, slow is OK sometimes, but sometimes it's really not. I'll change the wording a bit. -- SB_Johnny | talk 18:01, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Very Wikibookian -- Herby talk thyme 18:04, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


 * LOL... I assume that's a compliment? :). It's ugly wording, but aimed at allowing the parties to request the arbitration after 2 weeks of deadlock, or if one party isn't willing to accept mediation. The point now is to make sure thay at least try for 2 weeks before an arbitrator gets involved. -- SB_Johnny | talk 18:12, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrators
So where do they sign up - I will certainly be one as long as I don't have to deal with Johnny (for those without my sense of humour the first part is real the second is a joke!) -- Herby talk thyme 18:19, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd rather do without a comittee... whoever wants to get involved can get involved, or not :). Anyone with this page on their watchlist would be a good criteria. -- SB_Johnny | talk 18:29, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


 * IMHO this is what administrators ought to be doing best... if you can stomache it. Stepping in between two users to try and cool things off.  But the problem does come in when one of the parties involved is an administrator, as active users here on Wikibooks often get admin status.  The problem with arbitration is that you have to have somebody with enough "authority" to make things stick, even when seemingly prevailing concensus is to do the opposite of the ultimate arbitration decision.  And somebody who can cut through the BS of all the arguments and find the core principles that are holding everything up.


 * Wikipedia had Jimbo for the longest time, and the arbitrators there were (at least initially) hand selected by Jimbo, even though now they are elected positions. How and under what sort of criteria somebody like that should be selected here is something up for question.  Hopefully if the situation arises (being a smaller community here on Wikibooks) we can find a comparatively uninvolved admin who is willing to act as an arbitrator without getting into the thick of the fight.


 * I certainly don't want Wikibooks arbitration "cases" to end up so legalistic that you have to file "briefs", do "discovery", present "evidence" and other judicial steps that have gone to the point that some users are now specializing in Wikipedia law. I am not kidding here either, as it is that bad right now.


 * What keeps things more under control here on Wikibooks is that it is possible for everybody to know everybody. There is a numerical population theory that suggests levels of organization based on essentially just population, and that groups less than 100 people are something that a human mind can fully grasp and that you can develop personal relationships with all of those individuals in a community that size.  Once it gets larger, you no longer get to know everybody involved.  This isn't a hard and fast rule, and in groups like Wikibooks people come and go, but it is something to think about.  And one of the reasons why certain organizational structures are in place on Wikipedia that aren't found here on Wikibooks (yet).  --Rob Horning 07:50, 2 January 2007 (UTC)