[WikiEN-l] ArbCom - too attached to 'equal treatment'?

Mon Mar 7 23:15:52 UTC 2005

Mediators should explore what is likely to happen if the parties take the
matter to arbitration. Those possible negative consequences should serve to
motivate a settlement at the mediation level. This is another reason to
continue to look at possible infractions on both sides of any dispute. Once
we give someone carte blanche to let it all hang out if the other party is a
bad guy they will have absolutely no reason to settle at the mediation or
lower level.

Fred

> From: Brian M <brian1954 at gmail.com>
> Reply-To: Brian M <brian1954 at gmail.com>, English Wikipedia
> <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2005 16:43:40 -0500
> To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at wikipedia.org>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] ArbCom - too attached to 'equal treatment'?
> 
>> 
>> That is a role that mediation should play.
>> 
>> -- mav
>> 
> 
> Why separate "mediation" from "arbitration"?   Why such complicated
> dispute resolution procedures?    It is almost as if we want to make
> it hard and complicated to resolve disputes, something you can only do
> if you are determined.   What is the logic behind that?
> 
> Wouldn't mediation work better if the parties knew that the mediator
> seeking a resolution to a dispute/behaviour problem had the ready
> means to impose a sanction on any parties deemed not to be
> cooperating?     Iron fist in the velvet glove.   At present, in the
> case of real a behaviour problem (as opposed to a good-faith
> difference of opinion) mediation is a hoop people have to jump through
> to get to arbitration, and anyway it is broken.
> 
> --Brian M (BM)
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l