What I am suggesting, not necessarily advocating, is to take into
consideration at the arbitration stage whether the user engaged in
mediation in good faith. If they just messed around and stalled (or
whatever) that would be reported and considered. The theory,
basically is that if they have energy to repeatedly revert in order
to get their way with respect to an article, they should also have
the time and energy to discuss the matter in good faith or they ought
to lose the privilege of editing.
Fred
On Jun 8, 2005, at 8:50 AM, Kelly Martin wrote:
On 6/7/05, Anthere <anthere9(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
In real life, mediation is essentially a choice,
not a
requirement/obligation.
I've been in mandatory mediation twice (once on a court order, once on
my request). The mediator, in both cases, had only the authority to
report on what agreement, if any, was reached during the mediation.
Matters discussed but not agreed upon would not be included in the
report. (In one case, we agreed on most, but not all issues; in the
other we agreed on nothing.) I think it's important that those acting
as mediators keep the bulk of the mediation in confidence, reporting
only that mediation occurred and on what was actually agreed upon, if
anything, during the mediation. If either party refuses to mediate in
good faith, then the mediator should simply bring mediations to a
close and report back that no agreement was reached without explaining
why.
Kelly
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l