[WikiEN-l] Re: Mr. Natural Health has refused mediation with the community

Fri Jan 23 19:23:26 UTC 2004

Ray Saintonge a écrit:
> KNOTT, T wrote:
> 
>> Mr natural health has refused mediation with the community. He appears 
>> to feel that he has done nothing wrong and wants his "harassers" 
>> punished.
>> I'm just writing this email to keep the pressure on really. How far 
>> down the line are we on finalizing the arbitration process? When will 
>> the arbitration committee be able to something about the Mr NH situation?
>>
> Sometimes this process of "keeping the pressure on" is as irritating as 
> MNH's alleged wrongdoing.  What we see on the mailing list is a stream 
> of accusations intended to highlight every little fault that he commits. 
> We see little or nothing about the other side of the story.
> 
> Mediation and arbitration are very good concepts, but I too would be 
> hesitant about accepting a process in which the apparent mediators don't 
> have their own system properly in place.  The optics in those 
> circumstances suggest that a person is offering himself as a mediator in 
> order to further the POV of the majority opinion in that context.  If by 
> our actions we only succeed in convincing the accused that the process 
> is unfair, then we have undermined the mediation system, and his refusal 
> to co-operate with it begins to seem more logical.
> 
> The mediation committee needs to figure out its own procedures before 
> that option can be offered to anybody.  Those procedures must include 
> provisions to insure that the rights of the accused are protected so 
> that he can have the confidence that he is participating in a fair system.
> 
> Ec

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 ?