[WikiEN-l] Re: Mediation for 172 and VeryVerily (was Re: Yes, it is a lynch mob)
Anthere
anthere9 at yahoo.com
Thu Jun 10 00:29:15 UTC 2004
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
More information about the WikiEN-l
mailing list