[WikiEN-l] Re: Compulsory Mediation, Was Arbitration Commitee Seeking Comment

[Fred Bauder]

What I am suggesting, not necessarily advocating, is to take into  
consideration at the arbitration stage whether the user engaged in  
mediation in good faith. If they just messed around and stalled (or  
whatever) that would be reported and considered. The theory,  
basically is that if they have energy to repeatedly revert in order  
to get their way with respect to an article, they should also have  
the time and energy to discuss the matter in good faith or they ought  
to lose the privilege of editing.

Fred

On Jun 8, 2005, at 8:50 AM, Kelly Martin wrote:

> On 6/7/05, Anthere <anthere9 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> In real life, mediation is essentially a choice, not a
>> requirement/obligation.
>>
>
> I've been in mandatory mediation twice (once on a court order, once on
> my request).  The mediator, in both cases, had only the authority to
> report on what agreement, if any, was reached during the mediation.
> Matters discussed but not agreed upon would not be included in the
> report.  (In one case, we agreed on most, but not all issues; in the
> other we agreed on nothing.)  I think it's important that those acting
> as mediators keep the bulk of the mediation in confidence, reporting
> only that mediation occurred and on what was actually agreed upon, if
> anything, during the mediation.  If either party refuses to mediate in
> good faith, then the mediator should simply bring mediations to a
> close and report back that no agreement was reached without explaining
> why.
>
> Kelly
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>