[WikiEN-l] Re: Mediation for 172 and VeryVerily (was Re: Yes, it is a lynch mob)

Thu Jun 10 00:29:15 UTC 2004

thanks for your detailed answer Michael. Yes, I understand.
But wonder what can really be expected as a constructive solution from 
the AC :-(

Michael Snow wrote:
> In the spirit of toning down the debate, I've changed the subject 
> heading again.
> 
> Anthere wrote:
> 
>> May I asked why no one is considering mediation ? 
> 
> 
> Because it was suggested and considered several times, and the idea 
> consistently met with skepticism and rejection or was simply ignored.
> 
> When I started the third quickpoll for 172 and VeryVerily, my proposed 
> remedy was a request for mediation. I would have requested arbitration 
> instead, but concluded the case wasn't ready for arbitration at that 
> point because other possibilities like mediation hadn't been tried yet. 
> This quickpoll even had the 80% support required for implementing a 
> quickpoll remedy, until members of the mediation committee showed up and 
> objected to the idea of forcing people into mediation. (I'm not saying 
> the mediators don't have a valid point there, just pointing out that the 
> community already recognized the need for mediation in this case long ago.)
> 
> When VeryVerily and 172 continued their dispute, I asked them directly 
> to consider mediation. They responded with skepticism, so I tried to 
> address their concerns about the mediation process, but I was never able 
> to get either of them to say directly that they'd be willing to try 
> mediation. Instead, they either put off considering mediation, ignored 
> the idea, or dismissed it altogether. Meanwhile, the dispute went on 
> unabated.
> 
> So mediation has been considered here, but to no avail, because mostly 
> it's been considered by people who don't matter. You and I can consider 
> mediation all we want, but it won't do any good - VeryVerily and 172 are 
> the ones who control whether mediation can be successful here. Since 
> they couldn't manage to resolve their differences by themselves, I think 
> the only option we have left is arbitration.
> 
>> I think it was meant to help these types of cases ? 
> 
> 
> It certainly could have helped, if anybody could have convinced 
> VeryVerily and 172 to try it. They are still welcome to go into 
> mediation, as the votes by the arbitrators on accepting this case have 
> indicated.
> 
>> Actually, I even think at least "discussing" mediation possibility was 
>> a mandatory step in dispute resolution ? 
> 
> 
> If you haven't checked [[Wikipedia:Dispute resolution]] lately, you 
> might not realize that the process is no longer described as a sequence 
> of steps to be followed in a prescribed order. Mediation is not 
> mandatory, and it is not a prerequisite to arbitration. However, because 
> arbitration is a last resort, other means of dispute resolution should 
> be tried first. Also, the arbitration policy specifically provides for 
> referrals to and from the mediation committee. In this case, efforts 
> were made to get 172 and VeryVerily to participate in mediation; these 
> efforts simply never reached the point of actually making a request for 
> involvement by the mediation committee.
> 
> --Michael Snow