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

Sat Jan 24 09:37:25 UTC 2004

Dan Drake a écrit:

> We do understand, of course, that if mediation doesn't succeed, and 
> someone takes the same case to arbitration, a person who is not of good 
> will is certain to complain that he's being put on trial twice and having to 
> defend himself against the very same things that came up in mediation.

A mediator is not a judge. He is not there to put someone in accusation.

He
> may even make false claims about what went on in mediation; hence, the 
> full legalistic set of rules will have to include some kind of waiver of this 
> confidentiality.

full legalistic set of rules ?
May we keep the whole process simple, without setting up 15 pages rules 
please :-(
It does not matter really if the disputant makes false claims about what 
went on in mediation; as far as mediation is concerned, the case will be 
closed

> It amazes and distresses me that it is suddenly impossible to deal with a 
> couple of destructive bozos (no, please don't offer me a position mediating 
> or arbitrating these two cases) without weeks of major effort by some of 
> the best people on Wikipedia to find a perfect system.
> 
> Ray S has said,
> "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."
> It's undermined only to the extent that anyone else agrees that the process 
> is unfair.
> 
> What I don't get is the need for a long and difficult process to make sure 
> that no one can find the mediation process unfair. Mediators have no power. 
> If you don't expect the mediation to be fair, you can reject it. Then, if 
> someone still cares, there will be a request for arbitration, which _does_ 
> have power to act. That's where to concentrate on fairness and the 
> assurance of fairness.
> 
> MNH having declined mediation, he and the mediation process are now 
> irrelevant to each other. Anyone who holds that something ought to be 
> done about him needs to forget the mediation process and concentrate on 
> getting arbitration working.

The last I knew, MNH agreed to mediation for the article issue, but 
requested arbitration for the human dispute issue.

>>(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 ?
> 
> 
> I'm not sure what this means -- someone on his side who will watch the 
> proceedings and form an opinion (for whose benefit?) on their propriety? 
> Fine, if the parties want it. But again, since mediators have no power -- 
> presumably not even power to send the case to arbitration -- what does it 
> matter?

This is not a question of putting someone on one side or another, this 
is a question of having a neutral observer watching to guarantee the 
process is fair.