On 12/07/03 at 01:46 PM, Delirium <delirium(a)rufus.d2g.com> said: Muriel has been very persistent in trying to get him to chill out, but he takes no heed of her excellent advice. V.

Sean Barrett wrote: I believe there was a general consensus that mediation should come before arbitration. Ec

First, is hope of mediation abandoned in this case? Second, what is the question for arbitration? Third, who invokes arbitration? Fred

Yes, informal attempts have been made, but that is not mediation as we envision it. I suggest we try it if the parties are willing. So, who would decide and what are the procedures then? (Understanding that the mediation-arbitration scheme is not effective until January 1) You all seem to define the question as "Should Mr. Natural Health be banned" But larger questions exist regarding the scientist point of view and the behavior of his opponents. Fred

From: "sannse" <sannse(a)delphiforums.com> committee? I There were some pages sent up previously that tried to explain the general overview of mediation and arbitration [[Wikipedia:Mediation Committee]] [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Commitee]] and [[Wikipedia:Mediation and Arbitration (proposal)]]. Since you guys are now a duly constituted committee it would seen that you and Jimbo should decide what kind of structure is best for your mutual operations. Just remember that it is supposed to be consensual, i.e. the mediators are trying to reach an agreement between the parties concerned, and you should also be flexible to do it any way (individually, as a group, etc.) as the situation demands. Alex R. aka [[en:user:alex756]]

sannse wrote: I think this is definitely a good idea. Especially if you can convey to the person that the role of the mediation committee is explicitly to try to resolve disputes to the mutual satisfaction of all, and *not* as a "first cut" vetting candidates for the arbitration committee to ban. People naturally get very defensive when things like potential bans come up, so I think it'll work better if they understand that being involved in mediation is not really a first step towards banning, but instead an honest attempt to resolve the problem. They need to understand that any concerns they have will be given a fair hearing. Not being on the mediation committee myself I'll leave it you who are to decide how to best organize things, but I think having some sort of central information repository might be a good idea, where each person on the committee can check up on disputes and see who has done what, like "[x] emailed MNH, got a friendly response'" or "[[blah]]: dispute between polish and german nationalists; [y] is currently trying to find a compromise on the talk page". -Mark