Mr natural health has refused mediation with the community. He appears to feel that he has done nothing wrong and wants his "harassers" punished.
I'm just writing this email to keep the pressure on really. How far down the line are we on finalizing the arbitration process? When will the arbitration committee be able to something about the Mr NH situation?
Theresa
Theresa, I've been following this. Please go to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration and briefly set forth your complaint and the relief you request. (at the bottom of the page).
Others who wish to join in her complaint should also add their comments to hers under the same heading, ==Theresa v. Mr. Natural Health==
A notice should be placed on Mr. Natural Health's talk page quoting the complaint and linking to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration.
We are still working on procedure, but these are the commonsense steps we will probably come up with.
Fred
From: "KNOTT, T" TKNOTT@qcl.org.uk Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 10:54:44 -0000 To: "English Wikipedia" wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: [WikiEN-l] Mr. Natural Health has refused mediation with the community
Mr natural health has refused mediation with the community. He appears to feel that he has done nothing wrong and wants his "harassers" punished.
I'm just writing this email to keep the pressure on really. How far down the line are we on finalizing the arbitration process? When will the arbitration committee be able to something about the Mr NH situation?
Theresa
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
He will just delete it as soon as it is posted to his Talk page.
RickK
Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote: A notice should be placed on Mr. Natural Health's talk page quoting the complaint and linking to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration.
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it!
If he does I will revert it and protect the page.
Fred
From: Rick giantsrick13@yahoo.com Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 08:25:34 -0800 (PST) To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Procedure for requesting mediation
He will just delete it as soon as it is posted to his Talk page.
RickK
Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote: A notice should be placed on Mr. Natural Health's talk page quoting the complaint and linking to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration.
Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it! _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Fred Bauder wrote:
RickK wrote:
Fred Bauder wrote:
A notice should be placed on Mr. Natural Health's talk page quoting the complaint and linking to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration.
He will just delete it as soon as it is posted to his Talk page.
If he does I will revert it and protect the page.
So let him delete it!
If a notice is placed and he deletes it, then we know that he's been informed. That is all that due process (or anything along those lines) requires.
-- Toby
I think reverting it and protecting the page will work much better. It gives a strong message that business as usual is over unless they pay attention.
Fred
From: Toby Bartels toby+wikipedia@math.ucr.edu Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 13:16:47 -0800 To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Notice to defendent in the case of arbitration
Fred Bauder wrote:
RickK wrote:
Fred Bauder wrote:
A notice should be placed on Mr. Natural Health's talk page quoting the complaint and linking to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration.
He will just delete it as soon as it is posted to his Talk page.
If he does I will revert it and protect the page.
So let him delete it!
If a notice is placed and he deletes it, then we know that he's been informed. That is all that due process (or anything along those lines) requires.
-- Toby _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Fred Bauder wrote:
Toby Bartels wrote:
Fred Bauder wrote:
If he does I will revert it and protect the page.
So let him delete it! If a notice is placed and he deletes it, then we know that he's been informed. That is all that due process (or anything along those lines) requires.
I think reverting it and protecting the page will work much better. It gives a strong message that business as usual is over unless they pay attention.
So starting arbitration proceedings doesn't send that message?
Instead, you'll protect the user talk page (which /ought/ to be viewed as a huge abuse of administrator power but which somehow isn't), thereby preventing any further attempts at mediation by non-admins.
In MNH's case, that probably doesn't matter anymore. But it's an awful precedent to set.
(And in MNH's case, protecting his user pages has happened before, so it wouldn't send any message to speak of either.)
-- Toby
PMFBI again, but after following this case for a week or more, I don't understand this.
On Fri, 23 Jan 2004 17:23:17 UTC, Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
If he does I will revert it and protect the page.
From: Rick giantsrick13@yahoo.com
He will just delete it as soon as it is posted to his Talk page.
RickK
Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote: A notice should be placed on Mr. Natural Health's talk page quoting the complaint and linking to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration.
So what if he deletes it? Bad behavior, but it's his talk page. The point of posting the notice would seem to be to inform him of the fact that arbitration is requested. When the notice goes up on his talk page, he's informed. If he decides to ignore the notice, then I suppose there's a procedure for handling that. If he claims he never got the notice -- well, gimme a break! What are archives for?
OTOH, if a disputant deletes the official public arbitration notice on the RFA page, then just ban his/her ass. Naturally, the charge of vandalizing the RFA page is one he has to be allowed to defend himself against, but if that charge is established, you can forget all the other issues and all those complexities and doubts and ambiguities and procedural complications, and just ban his ass.
What am I missing here?
Dan, I *deeply* thank you for the mail you sent to apologize for writing as a non member (usually, people do not)
Do not forget to register soon :-)
anthere
Dan Drake a écrit:
PMFBI again, but after following this case for a week or more, I don't understand this.
On Fri, 23 Jan 2004 17:23:17 UTC, Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
If he does I will revert it and protect the page.
From: Rick giantsrick13@yahoo.com
He will just delete it as soon as it is posted to his Talk page.
RickK
Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote: A notice should be placed on Mr. Natural Health's talk page quoting the complaint and linking to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration.
So what if he deletes it? Bad behavior, but it's his talk page. The point of posting the notice would seem to be to inform him of the fact that arbitration is requested. When the notice goes up on his talk page, he's informed. If he decides to ignore the notice, then I suppose there's a procedure for handling that. If he claims he never got the notice -- well, gimme a break! What are archives for?
OTOH, if a disputant deletes the official public arbitration notice on the RFA page, then just ban his/her ass. Naturally, the charge of vandalizing the RFA page is one he has to be allowed to defend himself against, but if that charge is established, you can forget all the other issues and all those complexities and doubts and ambiguities and procedural complications, and just ban his ass.
What am I missing here?
Theresa, I've been following this. Please go to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration and briefly set forth your complaint and the relief you request. (at the bottom of the page).
Others who wish to join in her complaint should also add their comments to hers under the same heading, ==Theresa v. Mr. Natural Health==
A notice should be placed on Mr. Natural Health's talk page quoting the complaint and linking to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration.
We are still working on procedure, but these are the commonsense steps we will probably come up with.
Fred
From: "KNOTT, T" TKNOTT@qcl.org.uk Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 10:54:44 -0000 To: "English Wikipedia" wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: [WikiEN-l] Mr. Natural Health has refused mediation with the community
Mr natural health has refused mediation with the community. He appears to feel that he has done nothing wrong and wants his "harassers" punished.
I'm just writing this email to keep the pressure on really. How far down the line are we on finalizing the arbitration process? When will the arbitration committee be able to something about the Mr NH situation?
Theresa
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
From: "KNOTT, T" TKNOTT@qcl.org.uk Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 10:54:44 -0000 To: "English Wikipedia" wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: [WikiEN-l] Mr. Natural Health has refused mediation with the community
Mr natural health has refused mediation with the community. He appears to feel that he has done nothing wrong and wants his "harassers" punished.
I'm just writing this email to keep the pressure on really. How far down the line are we on finalizing the arbitration process? When will the arbitration committee be able to something about the Mr NH situation?
Theresa
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
KNOTT, T wrote:
Mr natural health has refused mediation with the community. He appears to feel that he has done nothing wrong and wants his "harassers" punished.
I'm just writing this email to keep the pressure on really. How far down the line are we on finalizing the arbitration process? When will the arbitration committee be able to something about the Mr NH situation?
Sometimes this process of "keeping the pressure on" is as irritating as MNH's alleged wrongdoing. What we see on the mailing list is a stream of accusations intended to highlight every little fault that he commits. We see little or nothing about the other side of the story.
Mediation and arbitration are very good concepts, but I too would be hesitant about accepting a process in which the apparent mediators don't have their own system properly in place. The optics in those circumstances suggest that a person is offering himself as a mediator in order to further the POV of the majority opinion in that context. If by our actions we only succeed in convincing the accused that the process is unfair, then we have undermined the mediation system, and his refusal to co-operate with it begins to seem more logical.
The mediation committee needs to figure out its own procedures before that option can be offered to anybody. Those procedures must include provisions to insure that the rights of the accused are protected so that he can have the confidence that he is participating in a fair system.
Ec
Ray Saintonge a écrit:
KNOTT, T wrote:
Mr natural health has refused mediation with the community. He appears to feel that he has done nothing wrong and wants his "harassers" punished. I'm just writing this email to keep the pressure on really. How far down the line are we on finalizing the arbitration process? When will the arbitration committee be able to something about the Mr NH situation?
Sometimes this process of "keeping the pressure on" is as irritating as MNH's alleged wrongdoing. What we see on the mailing list is a stream of accusations intended to highlight every little fault that he commits. We see little or nothing about the other side of the story.
Mediation and arbitration are very good concepts, but I too would be hesitant about accepting a process in which the apparent mediators don't have their own system properly in place. The optics in those circumstances suggest that a person is offering himself as a mediator in order to further the POV of the majority opinion in that context. If by our actions we only succeed in convincing the accused that the process is unfair, then we have undermined the mediation system, and his refusal to co-operate with it begins to seem more logical.
The mediation committee needs to figure out its own procedures before that option can be offered to anybody. Those procedures must include provisions to insure that the rights of the accused are protected so that he can have the confidence that he is participating in a fair system.
Ec
The first provision we can offer is about the confidentiality of everything that might be said during the mediation. It is very important to stress out that point. Nothing that will be said should left the small circles of mediators (unless the disputants agree to do so); and if one mediator talks in details to another about the case, it should be said clearly to the disputants.
Mostly, what is said must not be used afterwards against the person; ie it must not be revealed to the arbitration commitee; nor used against the disputant in case of later conflicts. (note that, de facto, it is best for the mediator never to get into conflict with that editor afterwards, temptation could be high :-)).
If one of the disputant fear he might be participating in a fair system, perhaps would it be for him to choose a silent overseer ?
What else are you thinking of Ec ?
This seems sound. During mediation in attempts to compromise often parties will admit hastyness or wrong doing and that not ought to be thrown up them later.
Fred
From: Anthere anthere8@yahoo.com Reply-To: anthere8@yahoo.com, English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 20:23:26 +0100 To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org Subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Mr. Natural Health has refused mediation with the community
The first provision we can offer is about the confidentiality of everything that might be said during the mediation. It is very important to stress out that point. Nothing that will be said should left the small circles of mediators (unless the disputants agree to do so); and if one mediator talks in details to another about the case, it should be said clearly to the disputants.
Mostly, what is said must not be used afterwards against the person; ie it must not be revealed to the arbitration commitee; nor used against the disputant in case of later conflicts. (note that, de facto, it is best for the mediator never to get into conflict with that editor afterwards, temptation could be high :-)).
If one of the disputant fear he might be participating in a fair system, perhaps would it be for him to choose a silent overseer ?
What else are you thinking of Ec ?