Theresa Knott wrote:
I agree. I came to the AC after it was formed and it's way of working
was set. But personally i hate the jargon and the quasilegalistic way of working. I would like to go to the people concerned and ask questions "Why did you remove that chunk of text" "Do you regret calling him a shithead and have you said or done anything by way of an aplogy" "If you had to to it again, would you have handled it differently?" that sort of thing. I'd like things to be far more informal than they are at the moment, but i don't know how the community feel about that, and i don't want to break a process, that basically works (even though it has its faults)
Isn't this why mediation and arbitration were planned as separate procedures. Mediation should do what you suggest. When a dispute is begun by someone intent on applying some kind of punishment the idea of finding a negotiated settlement on the article content has been pretty well abandoned. Refusal to co-operate with mediation should be used against a participant who wants to go immediately to arbitration.
Ec