Wikipedia talk:Odysseus Committee

Maybe WP:RFC is also a place to watch. But please explain how this committee is different from a group of people who voluntarily seek out disputes and do their best to resolve those? ( Radiant ) 12:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Because this committee would examine all disputes not just ones relating to policy. Also the Medcom never takes cases where all parties agree. The committee would be a place to resort to if the Medcom rejected your request. Wiki  e Zach|  talk  23:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * So the key difference with MedCabal is that it's got official sanction? I presume MedCabal isn't official for a reason and MedCom only takes cases where all parties agree for another reason. I'm not really seeing the point. I think this would give the appearance of official sanction to "compromises" that don't have the support of all parties, requiring further escalation of the dispute resolution process. –  Anþony  talk  07:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure where "related to policy" came from? WP:RFC is mainly about article content. ( Radiant ) 09:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

All parties agreeing to any mediation is important because they all have to accept the decision that's rendered. You can't force a decision on someone unless you're ArbCom. Fagstein 06:11, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok
Ok, but this committee would have larger jurisdiction and would work in a less burucratic way. Yes, all parties should agree, and in the case they don't, this committee can still help. Why can't good mediators not help a case if one of twenty people say they disagree. This would be a place to offer a compromise and also to check nutrality of other mediators. Wiki e Zach|  talk  14:36, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


 * You've just described MedCab, except it seems you want to enforce a compromise over the objections of minority parties. I hope you can see how that won't really solve anything. The parties who refused mediation will refuse the compromise and end up taking it to ArbCom anyway. –  Anþony  talk  22:54, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree. It would be more desirable to improve (or fix, I suppose) the current methods of dispute resolution, than to split off another one. ( Radiant ) 13:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Concerns
1) What's an "appeal from the mediation cabal?" If the parties have mediated with MedCab and failed to reach consensus, what can an appeal do?
 * It means that if a mediation case cannot be mediated or one party refuses to compromise, then they can proceed here before going any higher up.

2) Without procedures, it's hard to see what is being proposed? Is this (i) a more versatile third opinion, where the "compromise committee" would propose a compromise and let the parties decide whether they want it, (ii) a "do-over" mediation cabal, or (iii) something like a wimpier ArbComm, where the CC would hear arguments and attempt to resolve them.
 * Like number III, statements would be held, and it's findings would help future arbitrators from having to spend long hours going through the long debates before the dispute reaches a cabal.

3) The biggest problem I see is that Wikipedia works by consensus. If a minority opinion remains after negotiation, there's usually nothing for it but to keep debate going until (i) the various editors reach some common ground, (ii) one side tires of the debate and abandons it, or (iii) forever, whichever comes first.  WP:DR includes a variety of ways to stimulate debate or shake up deadlocks, but even ArbComm won't (usually) resolve content disputes.  More DR is always good, but what will the CC add?  Thanks, TheronJ 16:31, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * It would allow higher stages of mediation/arbitration to review what happended and how to proceed. It is like the Mediation Cabal except it (requires only one member to hear a case) and it has power to rule on an issue in the case the Medcom will not take it. Thank you for your comments. Wiki  e Zach|  talk  22:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Ruling power is useless if it's not enforced, and the name "Compromise Committee" does not imply a judgment-rendering body. ArbCom is the last word on disputes, and attempts to reform it have been tried, usually to fail because ArbCom seems to be doing its job. I simply fail to see a situation where someone objects to mediation for a reason that cannot be overcome and will be satisfied by a ruling from this committee. Fagstein 05:53, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

You can't force a compromise.
If everyone does not agree, then it isn't a compromise. If you want the comittee to be able to force a decision on people, say so, but realize that it will just be Arbcom 2, and will thus be shot down in approximately 2 seconds. -Amarkov blahedits 02:40, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and you can't speed up the process of consensus by ignoring objections, as that isn't a consensus. -Amarkov blahedits 05:55, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * usually all parties beside one wish to mediate, and with the dissent of one, hope is lost. If the mediation committee will not hear something, this body will. Wiki  e Zach|  talk  23:10, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


 * But unenforced meditation doesn't help when everyone doesn't agree. -Amarkov blahedits 00:51, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The whole point is to sumbit a compromise and list of their findings. They would be like Mediation before a suit except if it dosen't proceed further, it's compromise will be enforced. Wiki  e Zach|  talk  05:41, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay, so it's mini-Arbcom. In that case, no. Arbcom is the last resort for a reason. It's not Wikilike to have a group of 10ish people make a ruling on a subject, so it should only be done when absolutely necessary. This does not fall under "absolutely necessary". -Amarkov blahedits 05:46, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

How is it not wiki? Where do people turn in a situation when the Medcom refuses to hear it because of one person. Wiki e Zach|  talk  13:18, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * They try to work it out on their own, and if they really can't, they go to ArbCom. And did you really ask how it isn't wiki for a small group of people to dictate what will happen? -Amarkov blahedits 15:02, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Here's a radical idea
Something that might work would be an Odysseus Committee. Sometimes a discussion is deadlocked, and while the participants cannot agree on a decision, they agree that any decision is better than dissent and edit warring. The committee could be asked to make the decision for them (based, of course, on past discussion and compromise) but only if the participants voluntarily agree beforehand to abide by the decision like civilized adults. I'm not sure if such disputes occur all that often but it's a niche not readily covered by present dispute resolution. Sometimes any decision is better than no decision.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  13:27, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


 * That's a really good idea. The challenge would be certifying committee members - unless the committee members have a reputation for good judgment and a good recusal procedure, there wouldn't be a difference between doing this and just agreeing beforehand to accept a third opinion or by the majority opinion from a request for comment.  TheronJ 18:12, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


 * So this is basically a pseudo-ArbCom when the disputants agree not to waste ArbCom's time? I think it could significantly reduce ArbCom's case load -- when a case gets all the way to that level, pretty much everyone agrees something must be done. Establishing the committee's legitimacy and impartiality would be key to its success, as TheronJ points out, but basically this could take pretty much any case not related to claims of a vast Wikipedia conspiracy. The only real concern I have with it is the added layer of beaucracy. Other than that, it sounds solid. –  Anþony  talk  01:39, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I think that's the beauty of it: since it's not a mandatory process, users that don't believe the committee is impartial will simply not bring their dispute there. Nobody's forcing them to, after all. I agree that the page as written here is too bureaucratic; I'll see what I can do about that.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  09:58, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

On Authority
Should we aim for an unofficial MedCab-like arrangement, trusting in the good will of the users to enforce the decision, or will this have some real authority in issuing blocks and such? I can see an advantage to both. The former would be less beaucratic and less likely to have the whole process put under a microscope the way ArbCom is. And if it is, it'll be more likely to keep a cool name like "Odysseus Committee".

But without any authority, I don't see that this committee could handle many cases that would otherwise go to ArbCom. A quick perusal of Requests for arbitration/Completed requests shows me that most of the cases result in a ban or block of some party and ultimately all of the decisions are enforceable by block. –  Anþony  talk  11:18, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


 * To answer my own question, he's a possible solution: Each case would be assigned a neutral admin accepted by all parties, whose responsibility it would be to enforce the decision of the committee under his own authority. Like MedCab then, this committee could operate without any changes to existing policy. –  Anþony  talk  09:13, 30 December 2006 (UTC)