PMFBI; have just been watching this list for a few days, but at least I have a
few months of seeing Wikipedia operate. And I'm sorry to come out
swinging, but the time being spent on setting up a perfect system before
anyone can do anything about an alleged problem editor seems to me
excessive.
On Fri, 23 Jan 2004 19:23:26 UTC, Anthere
<anthere8-/E1597aS9LQAvxtiuMwx3w(a)public.gmane.org> wrote:
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.
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. 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.
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.
(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?
--
Dan Drake
dd(a)dandrake.com
http://www.dandrake.com/index.html
If I knew then what I know now, I would have said,
'I don't recall.'
--Frank Doyle, FBI agent, testifying under oath
about his previous deposition under oath.