This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ludwigs2 (talk | contribs) at 18:55, 10 September 2010 (→doc change, somewhere: r). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 18:55, 10 September 2010 by Ludwigs2 (talk | contribs) (→doc change, somewhere: r)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) The Mediation Cabal | ||
| Main page | Current cases | Suggestions |
 Central discussion
| ||
|
 Archives |
|---|
 Archives | |
|
|
Template:Misplaced Pages ad exists
doc change, somewhere
You know, just because I've run into this misconception a few times now, I've been thinking about adding a banner somewhere in the boilerplate that says, effectively:
Involvement in mediation is voluntary, and should be active. Mediation only works if participants have a sincere desire to resolve the issues at hand and are willing to commit themselves to the process of discussion. Do not begin the mediation process if there are some participants who are unwilling or unable to make that commitment; It will simply be a waste of everyone's time. In such cases it would be better to seek out formal mediation, arbitration, or some more authoritative solution to the dispute.
sorry if that sounds a little psychotherapeutical. The intent is to plant the idea in people's heads early that they need to be active and committed to the process otherwise it won't work. Would that work, you think? --Ludwigs2 00:01, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
- I think providing additional advice could be worthwhile. However, generally speaking, if the parties don't agree to formal mediation, then it doesn't proceed. Also, care should be taken in signposting disputes to ArbCom, as they don't rule on content, and require parties to have tried other steps in the dispute resolution process. PhilKnight (talk) 01:35, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
- well, it may be a function of the fact that the mediations I've done have all been high-tension affairs, but in both cases I ran into editors who had (for unknown reasons) come to the conclusion that medcab was an authoritative process, and settled down to disrupt the proceedings as best possible to prevent an authoritative ruling on that matter that would go against their interests. It's a funky misperception that causes headaches. We don't need to mention other venues, I just would (personally) like to make it explicit that (a) this is a cooperative system for structured discussion, not an authoritative system for reaching decisions, and (b) the process goes nowhere at all unless people are willing to commit themselves to the process. --Ludwigs2 18:55, 10 September 2010 (UTC)