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@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@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l