PMFBI; have just been watching this list for a few days, but at least I have a few months of seeing Wikipedia operate. And I'm sorry to come out swinging, but the time being spent on setting up a perfect system before anyone can do anything about an alleged problem editor seems to me excessive.
On Fri, 23 Jan 2004 19:23:26 UTC, Anthere anthere8-/E1597aS9LQAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org wrote:
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.
We do understand, of course, that if mediation doesn't succeed, and someone takes the same case to arbitration, a person who is not of good will is certain to complain that he's being put on trial twice and having to defend himself against the very same things that came up in mediation. He may even make false claims about what went on in mediation; hence, the full legalistic set of rules will have to include some kind of waiver of this confidentiality.
It amazes and distresses me that it is suddenly impossible to deal with a couple of destructive bozos (no, please don't offer me a position mediating or arbitrating these two cases) without weeks of major effort by some of the best people on Wikipedia to find a perfect system.
Ray S has said, "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." It's undermined only to the extent that anyone else agrees that the process is unfair.
What I don't get is the need for a long and difficult process to make sure that no one can find the mediation process unfair. Mediators have no power. If you don't expect the mediation to be fair, you can reject it. Then, if someone still cares, there will be a request for arbitration, which _does_ have power to act. That's where to concentrate on fairness and the assurance of fairness.
MNH having declined mediation, he and the mediation process are now irrelevant to each other. Anyone who holds that something ought to be done about him needs to forget the mediation process and concentrate on getting arbitration working.
(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 ?
I'm not sure what this means -- someone on his side who will watch the proceedings and form an opinion (for whose benefit?) on their propriety? Fine, if the parties want it. But again, since mediators have no power -- presumably not even power to send the case to arbitration -- what does it matter?
Dan Drake a écrit:
We do understand, of course, that if mediation doesn't succeed, and someone takes the same case to arbitration, a person who is not of good will is certain to complain that he's being put on trial twice and having to defend himself against the very same things that came up in mediation.
A mediator is not a judge. He is not there to put someone in accusation.
He
may even make false claims about what went on in mediation; hence, the full legalistic set of rules will have to include some kind of waiver of this confidentiality.
full legalistic set of rules ? May we keep the whole process simple, without setting up 15 pages rules please :-( It does not matter really if the disputant makes false claims about what went on in mediation; as far as mediation is concerned, the case will be closed
It amazes and distresses me that it is suddenly impossible to deal with a couple of destructive bozos (no, please don't offer me a position mediating or arbitrating these two cases) without weeks of major effort by some of the best people on Wikipedia to find a perfect system.
Ray S has said, "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." It's undermined only to the extent that anyone else agrees that the process is unfair.
What I don't get is the need for a long and difficult process to make sure that no one can find the mediation process unfair. Mediators have no power. If you don't expect the mediation to be fair, you can reject it. Then, if someone still cares, there will be a request for arbitration, which _does_ have power to act. That's where to concentrate on fairness and the assurance of fairness.
MNH having declined mediation, he and the mediation process are now irrelevant to each other. Anyone who holds that something ought to be done about him needs to forget the mediation process and concentrate on getting arbitration working.
The last I knew, MNH agreed to mediation for the article issue, but requested arbitration for the human dispute issue.
(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 ?
I'm not sure what this means -- someone on his side who will watch the proceedings and form an opinion (for whose benefit?) on their propriety? Fine, if the parties want it. But again, since mediators have no power -- presumably not even power to send the case to arbitration -- what does it matter?
This is not a question of putting someone on one side or another, this is a question of having a neutral observer watching to guarantee the process is fair.
What went on in mediation should simply not be considered at the arbitration stage. So claims, true or false, are irrelevant.
Fred
From: Anthere anthere8@yahoo.com Reply-To: anthere8@yahoo.com, English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2004 10:37:25 +0100 To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org Subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Mr. Natural Health has refused mediation with the community
He may even make false claims about what went on in mediation; hence, the full legalistic set of rules will have to include some kind of waiver of this confidentiality.
Just thought of mentionning that thought the below mail make it so appear I wrote that comment, I did not.
I agree with Fred entirely.
Anthere
Fred Bauder a écrit:
What went on in mediation should simply not be considered at the arbitration stage. So claims, true or false, are irrelevant.
Fred
From: Anthere anthere8@yahoo.com Reply-To: anthere8@yahoo.com, English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2004 10:37:25 +0100 To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org Subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Mr. Natural Health has refused mediation with the community
He may even make false claims about what went on in mediation; hence, the full legalistic set of rules will have to include some kind of waiver of this confidentiality.
On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 12:15:53 UTC, Anthere anthere8@yahoo.com wrote:
Just thought of mentionning that thought the below mail make it so appear I wrote that comment, I did not.
I agree with Fred entirely.
Anthere
Me too (pardon the expression). It hadn't been clear to me that this was part of the package.
Fred Bauder a �crit:
What went on in mediation should simply not be considered at the arbitration stage. So claims, true or false, are irrelevant.
Fred
Dan Drake a écrit:
On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 12:15:53 UTC, Anthere anthere8@yahoo.com wrote:
Just thought of mentionning that thought the below mail make it so appear I wrote that comment, I did not.
I agree with Fred entirely.
Anthere
Me too (pardon the expression). It hadn't been clear to me that this was part of the package.
Dan...why do you write "pardon the expression". Is that not correct to write "me too" ?
Anthere wrote:
Dan Drake a écrit:
Me too (pardon the expression). It hadn't been clear to me that this was part of the package.
Dan...why do you write "pardon the expression". Is that not correct to write "me too" ?
In internet culture, "me too" has come to be a somewhat notorious phrase associated with AOL users and other "internet newbies". It comes from AOL message boards (and possibly Prodigy or other message boards before that) where often when someone would post something about how they liked a movie or song or something, there'd be 10 replies that basically just said "me too". Sometimes in more words ("I also like that!" or something), but the effect was the same, so these became known as "me too" posts.
-Mark
k. lol.
Delirium a écrit:
Anthere wrote:
Dan Drake a écrit:
Me too (pardon the expression). It hadn't been clear to me that this was part of the package.
Dan...why do you write "pardon the expression". Is that not correct to write "me too" ?
In internet culture, "me too" has come to be a somewhat notorious phrase associated with AOL users and other "internet newbies". It comes from AOL message boards (and possibly Prodigy or other message boards before that) where often when someone would post something about how they liked a movie or song or something, there'd be 10 replies that basically just said "me too". Sometimes in more words ("I also like that!" or something), but the effect was the same, so these became known as "me too" posts.
-Mark
Fred Bauder wrote:
What went on in mediation should simply not be considered at the arbitration stage. So claims, true or false, are irrelevant.
Fred
Why are you being so formal? This isn't a court of law, it's just a discussion. When you put all of these formalities like inadmissible evidence in, what you have is a month-long court case, not just a short talk to stop an edit war.
LDan
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it! http://webhosting.yahoo.com/ps/sb/
From: "Daniel Ehrenberg" littledanehren@yahoo.com
Fred Bauder wrote:
What went on in mediation should simply not be considered at the arbitration stage. So claims, true or false, are irrelevant.
Fred
Why are you being so formal? This isn't a court of law, it's just a discussion. When you put all of these formalities like inadmissible evidence in, what you have is a month-long court case, not just a short talk to stop an edit war.
L'Dan I agree with your idea of informality, but I think that Fred has a valid point too. Mediation is supposed to be confidential between the parties, if someone starts using what one person states in a mediation against them and the arbitrators allow that this will have a chilling effect upon the mediation process. Mediation is much prefered to arbitration as it is consensual. Arbitration is something that is imposed by the arbitrators upon the parties, they have no control over what the arbitrators do, wheresa mediation is what is agreeable to both parties, people must be encouraged to talk and discuss things in mediation, not think that what they say will be used against them.
BTW I think the term is inadmissible evidence, I have never heard the term "unadmissible" used (maybe it is used some where else than where I have been, excuse my ignorance if that is true).
Alex756
Instead of using the words "inadmissible evidence" I could have said, "during arbitration the users shouldn't be able to drag in everything that happened during mediation", but the short phrase (from law, after all I was a lawyer) serves. It doesn't imply all the bullshit that goes with formal court proceedings, after all we are talking about mediation followed by arbitration for participants in a voluntary cooperative effort. Nevertheless it is useful to use short hand exppressions which represent events or things which otherwise have to be spelled out at length. Having to reinvent a new language for our particular proceeding would be quite burdensome although we probably will develop some language unique to our situation.
Fred
From: Daniel Ehrenberg littledanehren@yahoo.com Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2004 20:03:33 -0800 (PST) To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Unadmissible Evidence
Fred Bauder wrote:
What went on in mediation should simply not be considered at the arbitration stage. So claims, true or false, are irrelevant.
Fred
Why are you being so formal? This isn't a court of law, it's just a discussion. When you put all of these formalities like inadmissible evidence in, what you have is a month-long court case, not just a short talk to stop an edit war.
LDan
Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it! http://webhosting.yahoo.com/ps/sb/ _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 09:37:25 UTC, Anthere anthere8@yahoo.com wrote:
Dan Drake a �crit:
We do understand, of course, that if mediation doesn't succeed, and someone takes the same case to arbitration, a person who is not of good will is certain to complain that he's being put on trial twice and having to defend himself against the very same things that came up in mediation.
A mediator is not a judge. He is not there to put someone in accusation.
Yes, that's kind of my point (see below). So long as everyone remembers that, and remembers to pay no attention whatsoever to such a complaint, all is fine.
Perhaps my faith that such nonsense will be properly and completely ignored has been undermined too much by watching this painful process of trying to assure utter unimpeachable fairness in what is not (as you say) a judgment process.
He
may even make false claims about what went on in mediation; hence, the full legalistic set of rules will have to include some kind of waiver of this confidentiality.
full legalistic set of rules ? May we keep the whole process simple, without setting up 15 pages rules please :-(
Thank you for the reassurance; I was getting the opposite impression from what has been said on this list. Namely, the difficulty in setting up a flawless mediation procedure, when the arbitration must by its nature be even more difficult to set up.
It does not matter really if the disputant makes false claims about what went on in mediation; as far as mediation is concerned, the case will be closed
And as far as arbitration is concerned? It will never allow itself to be distracted by any kind of claim or complaint about what the acused's evil enemies did during the mediation process. Excellent.
I'm not being sarcastic, just maybe having some doubts about what will happen in practice. We all remember that people who are accused of being dedicated troublemakers are in some cases dedicated troublemakers, expert in tactics of distraction, confusion, and putting everyone else in the wrong.
...
MNH having declined mediation, he and the mediation process are now irrelevant to each other. Anyone who holds that something ought to be done about him needs to forget the mediation process and concentrate on getting arbitration working.
The last I knew, MNH agreed to mediation for the article issue, but requested arbitration for the human dispute issue.
Sorry; I misunderstood. I see that he's relevant to both processes.
...
I'm not sure what this means -- someone on his side who will watch the proceedings and form an opinion (for whose benefit?) on their propriety? Fine, if the parties want it. But again, since mediators have no power -- presumably not even power to send the case to arbitration -- what does it matter?
This is not a question of putting someone on one side or another, this is a question of having a neutral observer watching to guarantee the process is fair.
That's what I wonder about. Mediation is supposed to be fair and impartial in the first place. If a mediatee decides that the mediators are biased, he/she tells them to b---er off. What's the need for an observer here?
What happened in mediation cannot be brought up in any later arbitration, as we just agreed; so, again, who would later need the opinion of a neutral observer of the mediation?
Of course, if somebody *wants* an observer, and the other party doesn't have a problem, go ahead. But I still don't understand why it would be a significant part of the process.
Me too, but as most members of the committees have never been wet before they have to carefully design the best way to swim before they jump in. I tried throwing them in, but they wiggled and wiggled and got away.
Fred
From: "Dan Drake" dd@dandrake.com Reply-To: Dan Drake dd@dandrake.com, English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 13:10:29 -0800 (PST) To: "WikiEN-L" wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Mr. Natural Health has refused mediation with the community
It amazes and distresses me that it is suddenly impossible to deal with a couple of destructive bozos (no, please don't offer me a position mediating or arbitrating these two cases) without weeks of major effort by some of the best people on Wikipedia to find a perfect system.