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
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