From: jheiskan@welho.com
Look, folks. Can I make this very simple for you. There are only two
powers a
mediator needs. One power is the power to convince (through trust) that everything revealed during the mediation process will be held strictly confidential, and *never* brought to light otherwise.
I agree 101% with this -- the mediation process is a confidential "negotiation" between those who do not agree. That is all. If they come to an agreement, great, if not, nothing lost, maybe something gained (there has been some communciation, isn't that always a positive thing?).
The other power a mediator needs is the power to suggest, convincingly,
that the
next step, and a next step much more traumatic, is to bring in
*arbitrators*
with *much* more powers, and that mediation is much better than
arbitration.
Mediation can be a stand alone procedure, so I am not sure where this is coming from. I think that anyone who goes into mediation knows that if an agreement is not reached that there will be consequences, though some people do use mediation as a stalling tactic, most see it as a good faith attempt to get their point across to those they do not agree with. The consequence of not mediation does not have to be arbitration. It can be arbitrary power (i.e. someone decides to ban if there is no mediation resolution without any kind of further process after mediation involving the persons making the disputed edits).
Alex756