RickK wrote:

>Fred Bauder wrote:

>>A notice should be placed on Mr. Natural Health's talk page quoting the >>complaint and linking to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration.

>He will just delete it as soon as it is posted to his Talk page.

If he does I will revert it and protect the page.

Toby Bartels wrote:

>Fred Bauder wrote:

>>If he does I will revert it and protect the page.

>So let him delete it! >If a notice is placed and he deletes it, then we know that he's been informed. >That is all that due process (or anything along those lines) requires.

I think reverting it and protecting the page will work much better. It gives a strong message that business as usual is over unless they pay attention.

PMFBI again, but after following this case for a week or more, I don't understand this. On Fri, 23 Jan 2004 17:23:17 UTC, Fred Bauder <fredbaud(a)ctelco.net> wrote: So what if he deletes it? Bad behavior, but it's his talk page. The point of posting the notice would seem to be to inform him of the fact that arbitration is requested. When the notice goes up on his talk page, he's informed. If he decides to ignore the notice, then I suppose there's a procedure for handling that. If he claims he never got the notice -- well, gimme a break! What are archives for? OTOH, if a disputant deletes the official public arbitration notice on the RFA page, then just ban his/her ass. Naturally, the charge of vandalizing the RFA page is one he has to be allowed to defend himself against, but if that charge is established, you can forget all the other issues and all those complexities and doubts and ambiguities and procedural complications, and just ban his ass. What am I missing here?

From: Anthere <anthere8(a)yahoo.com> Reply-To: anthere8(a)yahoo.com, English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org> Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 20:23:26 +0100 To: wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org Subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Mr. Natural Health has refused mediation with the community The first provision we can offer is about the confidentiality of everything that might be said during the mediation. It is very important to stress out that point. Nothing that will be said should left the small circles of mediators (unless the disputants agree to do so); and if one mediator talks in details to another about the case, it should be said clearly to the disputants. Mostly, what is said must not be used afterwards against the person; ie it must not be revealed to the arbitration commitee; nor used against the disputant in case of later conflicts. (note that, de facto, it is best for the mediator never to get into conflict with that editor afterwards, temptation could be high :-)). If one of the disputant fear he might be participating in a fair system, perhaps would it be for him to choose a silent overseer ? What else are you thinking of Ec ?