regarding the section entitled "Waiving party agreement", item 3 says:

Have been blocked, site-banned, or banned from the topic-area in question, indefinitely or for longer than one month.

If I'm reading that correctly, the intent is for someone who is *currently* blocked, site-banned, or banned from the topic-area in question, indefinitely or for longer than one month, no? Case in point, we have someone involved in the Prem Rawat mediation who has had previous bans, but I don't think it's intended that he should not be allowed to declare his acceptance or not (he already has). Maybe adding "currently" or "at the time of acceptance of mediation" or something like that would do away with the ambiguity? -- Maelefique^(talk) 21:44, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The procedure actually means that a refusal to participate may be ignored if the party in question has been:

1. Blocked, indefinitely or for more than a month;
2. Site-banned, indefinitely or for more than a month; or
3. Topic-banned from the topic area in question, indefinitely or for more than one month.

Obviously, this applies at the time in question: if the party has a block, site-ban, or topic-ban of duration one month or more, and that block/site-ban/topic-ban is in force at the time of the mediation request, then the party may be excluded from the case. AGK [•] 11:48, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, if you're happy with it, I'm happy with it . When I first read it, it wasn't clear to me if it was intended to avoid the problem of users deliberately attempting to block a mediation (by refusing to participate) if they have shown previous problems in that area, or its intent was as you've stated above. Your above statement clarifies that quite well. -- Maelefique^(talk) 15:07, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]