![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
![]() |
![]() Archives |
---|
moved to Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Complaints#Self-criticism_of_the_Mediation_Cabal
I would suggest that articles for which a request for mediation has been made should carry a note, e.g. {{ ActiveDiscuss}}, to make sure that interested parties can find the mediation process. I propose this because, from the cases I reviewed to get a better understanding for the process of the mediation cabal, in three current cases it seemed dubious if that was the case and in one case people where actually complaining about not have been made aware of it. Alternatively the {{ ActiveDiscuss}} tag could be made a requirement for being accepted for mediation at all. The actual mediation could then have its own notice to let people know that, even for a discussion that has run into a deadend, it might be worthwhile to check the talk page again. -- Fasten 18:33, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Here is the {{ ActiveDiscuss}} template: {{ ActiveDiscuss}} Personally, I like the suggestion given by Fasten, but I do not like the template for that purpose. Another template may be more appropriate, or replace the Status: New request field that was in {{ Medcab2}} at one time. (Further instructions to the cabalists may be needed to keep that field up to date). Also, for a Mediation Cabal to remain a cabal, I would hope that its procedures will continue to remain very informal. A note to this affect could be placed on the main page to advise cabal users of this fact. I see the cabal as informal mediation. My two cent. SteveMc 04:53, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
I would like to propose a modification to the {{ Medcab2}} template. The change would be in the Request Information section, following Request made by:, add the following:
'''Status:''' (--to be modified by mediator--) '''new request, mediation pending''' <!--to mediators, possible choices: under consideration with ~~~~ awaiting answer to mediator's questions ~~~~ solution proposed, awaiting response ~~~~ final recommendation made, close case~~~~ any others? -->
Sincerely, SteveMc 19:38, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
I like them very much and I appreciate all your efforts. But I wonder myself is there the need to be so formalised? I mean we should not formalise and let this free to the mediator. In rest I think is a good alternative. Bonaparte talk 19:42, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Suggestions for mediators |
---|
Cabalists, the Mediation Cabal is a nice and laid-back, informal mediation forum for resolving Wikipedia disputes. Even so, here are a few suggestions that will help us maintain the integrity and maintainability of this process.
|
Suggestions for mediators |
---|
Cabalists, the Mediation Cabal is a nice and laid-back, informal mediation forum for resolving Wikipedia disputes. Even so, here are a few suggestions that will help us maintain the integrity and maintainability of this process.
|
I added some more points. -- Fasten 14:30, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
There is now a variant of the {{ ActiveDiscuss}} template: {{ ActiveDiscussMC}} for public dispute resolution. -- Fasten 14:51, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
{{ ActiveDiscussMC}}
I propose to split Mediator response in {{ Medcab2}} into Mediator comments and Mediator proposal / resolution -- Fasten 15:07, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Hello all: Good ideas here.
All the best, -- NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 18:02, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
By the way - since we're about as ad-hoc as could possibly be, and we're a cabal, nobody should feel afraid of implementing changes they think are necessary. You can just be bold and make them! -- NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 18:09, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
I just requested mediation and noticed that Step 1's "Click here" link opens up the edit box for Ye Olde Cabalists not the appropriate section: Send for the Cabal! Requests for cabal mediation. I'm not sure if this is a known issue or not, thought you guys would like to know. I'd change it myself but dunno how. Duffer 17:42, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Greetings, The mediation on Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/29_12_2005_Interstate_76_(east) is at a halt because its initiator, User:Beirne has withdrawn from Wikipedia (see User talk:Beirne#Good_bye). I am inclined to close the case. Any disagreement? SteveMc 22:44, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
I think it'd be wise to change date format from the current "dd mm yyyy" to "yyyy-mm-dd". The former is sort of made up, the latter is ISO 8601 standard. Not a competition there, if you ask me. Also the latter format has the advantage that when it is sorted lexigraphically it is sorted chronologically. When the former is sorted, it just sorts by day. Not very useful. I'm posting here to get a consensus on this and if consensus is reached I'll change the "report a new case" section and the templates appropriately. Thanks! -- Cyde Weys vote talk 17:41, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
I think that due to his proven sockpuppet farming activity we should hereby remove him from the Mediation Cabal; this sort of behaviour is unbecoming of mediators, and although he's indef blocked now I suggest we relieve him of his Cabal duties in case he should be unbanned. I actually never looked into his mediations before (and, indeed, I unwisely gave him an "award" for being a mediator, which I am somewhat embarassed about having done looking at the mediations he worked on - I merely did it in an effort of encouragement since he appeared to be flagging behind a bit). All of his cases need reassigning, and indeed someone would do well to review his past mediations, tidying up any damage (a few I looked at were pretty poor). Best regards, -- NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 01:32, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Since, looking more closely, there seems to have been deficiency in the cases this user handled, I think it would be best if we checked over the cases Bonaparte was involved in and took appropriate action where required. Below is a list of the "new version" cases he was mediator of, please sign off each case after you've checked over each, perhaps commenting on what state the cases were in.
Active cases
Closed cases
Actually, this does highlight a problem that we haven't really thought of regarding the medcab, and that is one of quality control; we would do well to have some sort of quality checking process in place so that another cabalist checks each case at some point to make sure the mediator is half-sane. -- NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 09:41, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
I am doing the Alpha Phi Alpha case, and have asked the participants whether further mediation is required. Olorin28 03:24, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
The Jefferson issue is still going, and as contentious as ever.-- SarekOfVulcan 04:14, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Greetings, What should be done when the advice of the mediator is not followed? I brought up the issue earlier on this page { here, now one of the users of that page is asking about abiding by the recommendations of the mediator (me) here.
I think I can answer my own question, but I want to see what other think. Here is what I think: Seems to me that since we are an informal mediation, and that we can be pulled into mediation by one side of the dispute, that our advice cannot be enforced. The most we can do is recommend that the users to use Wikipedia enforcement policies. It is not the responsibility of the mediator to do this.
Thanks, looking forward to your advice. SteveMc 04:29, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi -- just saw this "active discuss" template meant to be put on article pages. This is a bad idea; such templates IMO should only go on talk pages -- especially since what we're doing here is explicitly unofficial. Otherwise, get ready for people to make all sorts of templates to stick on articles! Sdedeo ( tips) 01:33, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
(I propose amending the template so that it can be placed on discussion pages instead of articles. If people don't object, I'll go ahead and make the change after waiting 24 hours or so. Sdedeo ( tips) 03:02, 15 January 2006 (UTC))
OK -- I'm going ahead and making the change to the template. Please discuss &c. if you think I'm wrong to do so! Sdedeo ( tips) 21:19, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Templates can be unofficial too. Kim Bruning 23:54, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Would it be possible to help David? The help was supposedly to level the field to two combatants wasn't it ? Does David need help ? The preceding rule forbad help. Have I slung my shot already, just the Giant is so tall he hasn't hit the ground yet? Is David relevant as metaphor to a trial? EffK 12:25, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Wait, you weren't laughing before? I wonder. I thought having a wierd cabal would be funny enough. Perhaps I should set up a mediation circus. Kim Bruning 23:53, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
We've recently seen a rash of MedCab cases involving registered users versus anonymous users. I'm thinking we should modify the MedCab instructions to prohibit people from filing MedCabs on anonymous users. It's simply too hard to do, especially with users who have dynamically-assigned IPs. I want to generate some discussion on this before I implement it, though, because I'm not sure if I've thought it all the way through yet. -- Cyde Weys 22:50, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
This is the mediation CABAL. There are no rules. :-) If you want a million little rules driving you crazy, go join the mediation committee. ;-)
Well enough. I do agree that dealing with anon ips is tricky, but it can certainly be done. It's often worth it too, if they're of good will. Especially if you can teach them a bit about wikirules and convince them to hang around and help build the encyclopedia. Kim Bruning 23:51, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
After mediating a solution, it is rather annoying not to see it implemented! i.e., the final state of the article after everyone's gone home is the same as it was at the start. I suppose some people just like to argue for the sake of arguing, and once the conflict is removed, interest declines to zero. Sdedeo ( tips) 23:40, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Hey, is that Kim Bruning? I voted for you! Go and help out on the cases, there's a sudden influx of them! Sdedeo ( tips) 02:08, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
I wonder if people are still doing it? When there's a situation, just join the conversation on the talk page and be your sane, conciliatory self. Try and get things done and gain concensus in a friendly manner (but since you don't have any interests either way, there's no hurry or need to push it. Just relax and sort of show you're relaxed). Typically that's enough to kill a lot of problems right there, with no further work needed. Try for concrete solutions, where actual edits are made to the page that don't get reverted.
Kim Bruning 00:21, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
You wish! The case is closed when the participants have agreed not to fight, or better yet, when they've agreed to stick their energies into something productive.
The case closes when they're shaking hands, or if you've managed to go "Look! Shiny!" and they're actually off editing the shiny and forget all about you ;-)
Finally, don't expect a single case of shaking hands to do it. In fact, count and build on it. Get people to agree on something small first. They can always come back if things are still too strained. If they do come back, just get them agree on another small thing. Many pennies make a dollar. :-) Kim Bruning 00:36, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
So I thought I'd just dive into some mediations today. But on my first sample, in half of the mediations I was "locked out". The mediator was doing all kinds of formal stuff that I dare not touch. The other half were already finished for some definition of, I guess. (But no one marked them so I could easily figure which was which)
Also somewhere along the way, case descriptions have grown a little past 2 lines. :-P
Soooo, it's usually a good idea for mediators to cooperate on cases. Many hands make light work! :) If you'd like me (and by extention other folks) to help out with your mediation, be sure to keep it informal and lightweight, and possibly at the article talk page or what-have-you, so that random bystanders can just pop in and help out, without it being at all awkward. :-)
(In fact, make sure to (ab)use the bystander effect as much as possible! Recruit people into helping you. That way they pick up the tricks and will be able to look after themselves after a while :-) )
Kim Bruning 13:09, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
See also: My return as coordinator
Dear Cabalists,
Just now I had an IRC conversation at length with the original founder of the Mediation Cabal, Kim Bruning, and have come to realise that I have in fact moved this initiative in a somewhat undesirable direction. Kim raised very valid concerns over the fact that I have made this initiative too formal - in effect, creating a committee out of what was designed to be an open process. In addition, it appears that I misjudged the actual purpose of the Mediation Cabal; Kim has mentioned to me that his view was that the "real" Mediation Cabal doesn't have anything to do with this page at all, and this Wikipedia namespace page was intended to focus efforts.
It appears I've driven away the "old time" mediators because of this formalisation, and indeed Kelly Martin expressed to me that she felt the Medcab had become too formal and thus did not wish to rejoin it after her arbitration term ended; I think she is quite right, and steps need to be taken to refocus this initiative towards something more congruent with its aims. As a consequence I feel I have not really performed satisfactorily in my role as Coordinator, and think that it is time that someone else took my place here who would retune this initiative towards a more productive viewpoint. If anyone is interested in taking this role over, please do so, although perhaps Kim Bruning may be able to select someone who would be ideally suited. I will however remain here as a mediator, of course, and will continue with the cases I've already assigned.
I would like to thank all of the excellent mediators who have been doing brilliant work recently down here, and also to thank Kim for pointing this out to me.
Best regards, -- NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 23:56, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
<Evil Cabal Grin> I managed to snatch Wgfinley from the jaws of the Association of members advocates. He's the original co-founder of the mediation cabal, and quite ambitious it seems. Typically the cabal runs itself, I've been told, but it's always nice to have an experienced user around to keep an eye on things. :-)
Okay, maybe a Yank isn't allowed to say that but I have so live with it!
Kim contacted me with an urgent plea about MedCab and after mulling for sometime and succumbing to a type of persuasion that only Kim can provide (no, no favors were provided, get your mind out of the gutter) I decided to take over as MedCab Coordinator, or Grand Poobah if you will. So, here I am.
In all seriousness (which shouldn't happen around here very often) Nicholas will be sorely missed, he did a lot of great work and I am sad to see him go. I have posted a plea for him to come back on his talk page, I hope he will some day soon. I'll even let him share the Grand Poobah Chair (there, made it funny, now happy).
As my first act, I have archived this talk page. Sheesh you guys have been rambling on. This is an example of being bold and I like it. The way to the heart of any Grand Poobah is to embrace the trifecta of which BE BOLD is one. We need some boldness here. That's what I hope to interject. Why do we even have a page as silly as "Mediation Cabal" with WP:TINMC as the shortcut? Why? I'll tell you, let me think of the reason first though....
Oh wait, I remember. See, when Kim and I founded this thing we wanted to have something simple to help work out disputes before they get blown up into nuclear war (see also arbitration). One of the things that we believe leads to nuclear war is getting all caught up in one's own argument and then the policies and procedures of making that argument. And then the policies and procedures for making the policies and procedures for making the argument.
Wait....I'm not doing this very well. Okay, look, if you've ever been to court you know what I mean. People get all dressed up (well, most of the time) and there's a judge with a robe and a big hammer thingy that he slams when he doesn't like what someone says. It's all up tight. We think this is the #1 reason why it's tough to get to truth in a courtroom (besides the lawyers).
Anyway, we like to keep things a bit goofy and light because it disarms people, takes the grave seriousness out of thing and encourages people to relax. That's the idea anyway. Now, if you know me at all you know I can be serious as a heart attack when I want to be (see also Grand Poobah's block log) but the idea is you give thing a chance to be light and workable and not up tight, stale, and stagnant as a polyester leisure suit. That stuff sucks to just be plain honest.
I've been keeping an eye on things although not participating. I've archived a lot of discussion not because it was bad but because this page was too dang long. I think folks have meant well but we don't want this to get all bogged down with process and procedure like I said above. That's what MedCom is for (well, we hope they don't get bogged down but they do). So, I'm going to sit back for a bit but I reserve the right to BE BOLD and change some stuff in how we do things to make it easer. I think Nicholas did a great job, there's nothing wrong with organization of the front page, that's important. But we can't get so caught up with organization that we don't help people. Savvy? Or do I have to whip out some Grand Poobah whoopass for ya?
I'd like to introduce the new Mac Pro.....
No, seriously, here's the one more thing. I set up the Coordinator's Desk so that folks can leave me messages and missives about getting bent and stuff like that there. I'll also throw up some secret plans (ideas) from time to time. So, feel free to post stuff over there.
Well, that's it, I'm glad to be here to help out and let's cabal again just like we did last summer!!
-- Wgfinley 04:33, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
I have posted Alternative Dispute Resolution as a proposed group at Wikipedia:Wikiproject/List_of_proposed_projects#Alternative_Dispute Resolution. The project would improve/create articles in the main namespace relating to negotiation, conciliation, facilitation, arbitration and other alternatives to litigation. Thought the users at mediation cabal might be interested. Lets see if it gains sufficient participatants and go from there.-- Edivorce 17:29, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Would anybody be against having a TINMC userbox? I have no time to make one right now, but the text could be something along the lines of 'There is no Mediation Cabal. However, if there was one, this user would be a member.' Firestorm 21:58, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Frankly I don't like them other than babel and where needed. I won't oppose it if you guys want to use one though. -- Wgfinley 00:29, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Well hey, why do you think I didn't lay down a grand poobah edict that userboxes suck and shouldn't be used? :P -- Wgfinley 04:09, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
{{ user medcab}} Share and enjoy. -- Fasten 15:32, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Just wanted to encourage people to use the "strikethrough" done by <s>blah</s> when updating article mediation status, instead of deleting what was written previously. That way people can see both when the case was taken up, and when it was resolved. (As a side note, it's very satisfying.) Yours,
Sdedeo (
tips)
06:00, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Moved to Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Complaints
I see that the format around here has been changed... I requested mediation back in November and Happycamper helped to referee. The problem has remanifested itself, and I need to cite my old request for mediation from the cabal to document that I (we) have attempted to previously exhaust all available remedies in our dispute. However, when looking in my contribution history the request is now gone and there don't appear to be any archives or history @ the cabal. Any advice on how I can find my old request? Cyberdenizen 17:08, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
We found it! Thanks! Cyberdenizen 03:52, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
I put in a request two weeks ago. How much longer will it be before I can expect some guidance ? The editor I'm discussing with won't use talk pages, and I don't know where else I'm supposed to find help.
Sandy
00:26, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
I added the question "Would you be willing to mediate yourself and accept an assignment as a mediator?" to the {{ Medcab2}}. -- Fasten 10:57, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
I suggest that the enthusiasm of some would-be mediators be curbed. -- Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 09:50, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Twrigley ( talk • contribs) 17:31, 22 February 2006
I seem to have trouble making this a formal case, I've succeeded in step one but not step two.
I note that PJM has declared himself part of an anti-vandal group. However, my edits were not vandalism (they gave further details as to why historians argue his sleeping with men was common - historical perspective shows that there was a shortage of housing on the frontier, eg the then "Northwest" where Lincoln lived. This was also the case during WWII, where people, generally shift factory workers, often rented "hot beds" - literally sharing a bed during different shifts of the day, due to the housing shortage.)
PJM, according to his talk page (Note #5 - "Vandalism"), has jumped the gun before, reverting perfectly good edits. He may have a bias towards any edit without a full summary. He did not try to discuss this with me, just left a message stating that my edit was "determined to be unhelpful" and was reverted. Apparently he did not even read it. Nor did he look at my log to see where I reverted vandalism on Diane Keaton, NPOV on Julian Lincoln Simon, Sea Org, etc.
Is this member and the anti-vandal group aware of the standards for edit disputes, eg "assume good faith" and attempt to discuss disagreements? I did not post on his talk page as he had already given me the equivalent of a "first strike", and if he jumps the gun on edits, I am concerned he might also jump the gun on calling "troll" or further punishing me in some way. Again, I don't believe he read the edit I made. 67.10.133.121 22:38, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Sorry all, been very hectic in RL lately and I haven't been on much. Things seem to be clearing up and I hope to do some editing tomorrow of which getting at the requests will be top priority. Seems folks have been stepping up and taking cases which is good, let's keep it going. -- Wgfinley 23:12, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Is the use of the {{ help me}} template on WP:MEDCAB an acceptable use of the template when the list of incoming cases is getting too long? -- Fasten 11:48, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Dear Cabalists:
I have taken the decision to return to Wikipedia, and indeed have risen from the wikidead, so to speak, on my own volition. I made my decision to leave Wikipedia whilst in one of my depressive states of mind, and in the interim month since my self-immolation my state of mind has improved considerably. I recognise it was grossly unfair of me to abandon my duties here on Wikipedia, and to immediately place upon Kim and Wgfinley the onus of ensuring the duties of my medcab position were fulfilled. I wish to take this opportunity to apologise most humbly for abandoning Wikipedia, this initiative, and my colleagues during my lack of self-control and perseverance. I feel that, because of my unreliability, it would be unwise for me to assume my previous position as manager of the medcab; however, I might - if I may - return to a reduced degree here, as a mediator, and perhaps do some degree of coordination. My only concern is, however, that I am not sure whether I may relapse into my old state of mind, and as a consequence it is unwise to rely upon me to any major degree.
I would like to thank all of the hard-working mediators and management here at the Mediation Cabal for their diligent and most valuable work. I hope to be able to assist in perhaps getting things running a little more smoothly, because in my absence the workload has increased almost threefold; I hope I shall be able to tackle something.
Yours, -- NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 00:16, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
I see SiP has added herself to the list, at the top no less. I don't know if anyone patrols the list at all, but my experiences with SiP have been negative, and I wish to alert the cabal to this. See Wikipedia talk:Three-revert rule for more William M. Connolley 09:41, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Also: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#StrangerInParadise_spambot_spamming_userpages William M. Connolley 13:55, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Humour. Humour is a characteristic by no means possessed by everybody. Third party responsibilities are exacting and un-remitting. The peacekeeper therefore needs to cultivate a sense of humour, as much as he needs to be possessed of good humour. The first ensures that he can employ a light touch when a light touch is needed to ease an otherwise intractable situation; it helps him to relax and make others relax at times of stress and high tension. Good humour makes for good working relations, because a man of good humour is accessible and approachable — a quality of considerable importance in a peacekeeper when negotiating with the respective parties in a dispute.
... the third party's weapon is not a self loading rifle but his ability without force or threats to persuade both sides to avoid violence and settle their differences by peaceful means ...
Both from The Peacekeeper's Handbook. :) Hopefully they'll make you smile too. - FrancisTyers 15:16, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Hello all: I've recently started the Wikipedia:Advocate Cabal, because it looked to me that the AMA was a bit on the broken side and some sort of informal initiative might be able to plug the gap until they've fixed their various administrative issues. I notice that the mediation backlogue here is very long, and I wonder if perhaps some cases which could in fact be better served by an advocate could be directed towards the new initiative. In addition, advocates are very welcome for the new initiative, although if you do volunteer for both projects you should be sure that you won't advocate cases you're mediating or vice versa to prevent conflict of interest. Many thanks, and best regards, -- NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 04:30, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Here is a case where a mediator is not impartial but isn't (at least not yet) willing to step down or assume an impartial position. The case itself is not particularly important but the Mediation Cabal has no way to deal with the problem. The Mediation Cabal assumes the authority to assign a single person to the position of mediator; to make that meaningful the Mediation Cabal cannot recommend to ignore and work around mediators, as that may lead to difficult situations with more than one mediator. I guess we need at least a recommended procedure on how to remove mediators from the office when it is obvious that they are not accomplishing anything or are not even trying. Please don't assume that the example case is already requiring action, this is merely a theoretical escalation of the example case. -- Fast e n talk| med 19:09, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Originally I tried to get as many people as possible to respond at once, but at least two, so that you've got each others back. One mediator per case is one of the current practices that scares the heck out of me, since it gets you back to the high stress situations that the mediation committee has so much trouble with.. If one of the mediators in a team is clearly screwing up, give them a whack over the head and ask them to go bother someone else. :-) Kim Bruning 21:42, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
I made a template Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Opentask and put it as a reference in Template:Opentask:
-- Fasten 18:50, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't see the part in Categorical imperative that construes the maxim to mean "Only ask others to do what you yourself would do". Any sensible notion of division of labor implies that some people are good at some tasks, and not at others. By no means does it make sense that if I ask you to bake me a cake, that I would consider myself willing or able to bake you a cake. But that doesn't mean I won't happily build you a bridge.
It seems to me the maxim is more closely "Don't do things that you would not want others to do", a sort of philosopher's ivory-tower reconstruction of the Golden Rule. This is not the same thing.
It by no means follows, even by the Categorical Imperative, that asking for specialized help means that I too am willing to offer that same specialized help.
So, I don't see the justification of the guilt-trip in the medcab request form:
"Would you be willing to mediate yourself and accept an assignment as a mediator in a different case? This is, following the Categorical Imperative, the idea that you might want to do what you expect others to do. You don't have to, of course, that's why it's a question."
- Keith D. Tyler ¶ 00:54, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
By your reasoning it is perfectly okay for a highly-paid specialist to work only in his or her area of expertise. This, however, creates a community where everybody who is capable to be a highly-paid specialist is likely to choose such a profession and dedicate his or her available work time exclusively to that profession. This may appear desirable to some people but I have to disagree:
Strict division of labor and specialization is not a maxim I would will to become a universal law. -- Fasten 15:48, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
I do not consider the Mediation Cabal to be an independent community I merely assume that it is a desirable maxim that, lacking any reason to receive compensating support [1], the consumers of a specific service should also contribute to support that service (consume in balance). A further reason could be that people who require mediation may learn from being mediators. The maxim here could be that you could will that people who may lack desirable skills or insights should be encouraged to adopt roles where these skills or insights are promoted.
The Mediation Cabal
You are a disputant in a case listed under
Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases.
We invite you to be a mediator in a different case.
Please read
How do I get a mediator assigned to my case? for more information.
SteveBot (
talk)
07:30, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
-- Fasten 15:00, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
In case anyone's interested here's a little perl script I wrote that will prompt you for all the information the Mediation Cabal evidence template requires and generate a template for you automatically. -- noosphere 06:28, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Dear Cabalists: Just a quick note to say that I'm returning to the Mediation Cabal as coordinator, based on Wgfinley's assent for me to do so, and I look forward to coordinating this initiative once again and (hopefully) get this case queue moving a bit more. Well, erm, it looks like there's a lot of work that needs doing, and I hope within the next few days to work on streamlining and speeding up how we do things here. I note quite a few things have changed since I last saw the medcab. I hope that we can try to shift this backlogue rapidly, as it looks like although mediation is taking place some cases have gone a bit on the "stale" side, that is, the sensible time for mediation has passed. I'd like to thank Wgfinley for his work during my temporary absence, and also to the fine mediators here at the Mediation Cabal for their hard work. If anyone has any questions or concerns please do drop me a talk page message. Best regards, -- NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 00:08, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
There have been a few complaints about unskilled mediators. It may be a good idea to provide some guidance to new mediators by assigning senior mediators on request. (Also hinted at in " Kantian guilt?"). I would recommend to add a further table column to the assignment table (senior mediator) and assign senior mediators in case of complaints or on request by disputants or inexperienced mediators. -- Fasten 14:15, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Actually the idea wasn't to demand that from anybody but to make the Mediation Cabal a process that needs little support from permanent members. If all disputants are invited to mediate the chances are high that a sufficient amount accept the invitation and all cases can be dealt with even when about one third (estimated) of the submitters are not willing to mediate. That would allow to put the volunteer effort of the Mediation Cabal into providing senior mediators. -- Fasten 19:32, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
The Mediation Cabal is informal mediation (and an early step in dispute resolution). I would recommend quality control in the form of senior mediators picking cases and commenting as it seems necessary but not as a formal process behind an informal one. -- Fasten 19:46, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Although inviting people to take an interest in dispute resolution and training disputants to become mediators is not a declared purpose of the Mediation Cabal this may, in the long run, help to decrease the number of disputes and raise general civility among people who previously had no experience in dispute resolution. I think that's well worth the trouble of dealing with inexperienced mediators. It may even be educational for disputants who need to verify why their (inexperienced) mediator is not acceptable and have to read the suggestions for mediators to be able to do that. -- Fasten 19:46, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi all -- I'm back on wiki and back on medcabal after a wikibreak. It's fantastic to see how much work people have done, and it looks like nearly all the cases have been taken up. Way to go! Sdedeo ( tips) 23:34, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Would the case described in User:SPUI/Curpsbot be within the scope of the Mediation Cabal? -- SPUI ( T - C - RFC - Curpsbot problems) 03:17, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
I've added a "review" column to the assignment table. It means that a mediator who has reviewed a case can offer a second opinion on the case to any interested party. It can also be used to put a second mediator on a case when there is a reason to doubt that the assigned mediator is able to handle the case alone (e.g. when ve is new to wikipedia). The second mediator can review the mediation while its going on and provide assistance. This second interpretation is just an offer how to introduce quality control to mediation cases with inexperienced mediators. -- Fasten 14:59, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
I just saw that User:Ellis2ca has been assigned as a mediator? Are you aware that he is in the middle of an edit war? He is not too up on how wikipedia works, and usually is not logged in when he makes edits, but here is a recent diff [2] when he did happen to be logged in. He seems to usually edit from this IP.
If I don't hear from anyone on this soon, I'm going to take his name off -- he does not seem to be an appropriate person right now to bring in as a mediator and it doesn't appear as if he volunteered to do this.
Sdedeo ( tips) 18:48, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
OK -- thanks. I'll take over that case. Sdedeo ( tips) 20:10, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
I've created a new template for putting on dispute participant talk pages, to facilitate the process of requesting people to take part in a mediator (in keeping with the orange box header style; I'm not sure where we arrived at this style for the medcab, but I thought I'd go along with it anyway). One can use the following syntax:
and stick it on a dispute participant's talk page. It uses an includeonly hack in such a way as the template is self-signing, so that one's sig is within the div box. MediatorName is whatever first name the mediator would like to be referred to, just for friendliness; casename is the medcab case identifier for the mediation case (such as "2006-01-16 Deathrock & Deathrock fashion" for the Deathrock case). It automatically uses the page name from which to get the username. Below is an example use of it, using this case as an example. I hope this is of use to someone. Best regards, -- NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 23:52, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
The Mediation Cabal: Request for case participation |
---|
Dear Mediation Cabal/2006 Archive: Hello, my name is Nicholas; I'm a mediator from the
Mediation Cabal, an informal mediation initiative here on Wikipedia. You've recently been named as a dispute participant in a mediation request here:
I'd like to invite you to join this mediation to try to get this dispute resolved, if you wish to do so; note, however, it is entirely your choice whether or not you participate, and if you don't wish to take part in it that's perfectly alright. Please read the above request and, if you do feel that you'd like to take part, please make a note of this on the mediation request page. If you have any questions or queries relating to this or any other dispute, please do let me know; I'll try my best to help you out. Thank you very much. Best regards, NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 23:52, 15 April 2006 (UTC) |
One problem I've found is beginning a mediation on a talk page, having others join in, and then have the newcomers disavow any desire to participate in a mediation. Any suggestions for how to solve this? I think I'll begin by using that "medcab template" at the top of the talk page in question. Sdedeo ( tips) 22:03, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
A couple picky points:
The header should read "From the Mediation Cabal: Request for case participation"
The message starts "Dear Mediation Cabal". It should read "Dear Wikipedian"
Richard 16:08, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
User:StrangerInParadise is listed as a cabalist, but see this RfA: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Guanaco,_MarkSweep,_et_al, where "StrangerInParadise is disruptive" and "StrangerInParadise is uncivil" were passed unanimously, and "StrangerInParadise placed on personal attack parole" was as well. Perhaps someone closer to the core of cabal power could remove him from the list for cause? Sdedeo ( tips) 22:00, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
I have a comment/query. I recently noticed a newish editor ask for mediation here in relation to an article where he was the one who was clearly at fault (not familiar with the content policies, didn't know how to use sources). The mediation was, I believe, accepted, but in return for this, the editor was asked if he would be willing to mediate a case himself, and in fact, I believe was given one. Given that this editor is, so far as I can tell, quite unfamiliar with Wikipedia and our policies, is it wise to ask him to mediate? I'm not mentioning names, because I'm assuming this is a general policy of yours, that to receive, editors also have to give. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:08, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Maybe I haven't been diligent enough in my reading so please help me in my laziness.
I checked out a couple of the "New Cases without mediator" and saw where someone had issued a request for information. In some cases, that information was provided. Does this mean the case is now being mediated by the person who issued the request for information?
I am thinking about getting involved in the Mediation Cabal but I'm trying to test the waters by dipping my toe in first. Mixing metaphors, I also don't want to step on anybody's toes by inserting myself as a mediator where there is already one involved.
Also, do I have to start by putting myself on the mediator list before I can take on a case?
Do I wait to be assigned or do I assign myself by jumping into one of the "New Cases without mediator"?
Richard 08:27, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
I begin by acknowledging that I, Rawhide4u, am a "newbie" as they say and the rules and regulations are relatively new to me. I was introduced to this venue as it being a “free”, “non-bias” display of factual information. However, the issue at hand is that many of my factual, non-bias edits and links are being blatantly removed and/or re-edited by user BD2412.
I would understand if my edits hinged on copyright infringement, were blatantly untrue, etc. but quite the contrary. Additionally, while attempting to communicate with user BD2412, I posted a “user talk” comment in response to his post on my “user talk” and he promptly removed my posts by “archiving” his user talk. Childish at best this seems but it has already raised a concern with me and I’ve been a member for only 1 day now.
I was completely under the impression that this was a “neutral” and “free” venue for factual information. If ones non-bias information can be removed and/or edited at one’s sole discretion, then what is the point of providing the factual information?
I hope someone looks into this particular issue.
Rawhide4u 02:40, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Rawhide4u is trying to manipulate the system to gain sympathy while pushing a scam which asserts that there is no income tax. I encountered this user was with respect to his edits to Irwin Schiff, an article which has been subject to frequent attacks by tax protesters - persons who, like Schiff, adhere to various unreasonable conspiracy theories to justify their greed-driven claims that they don't have to pay income tax. Many of the people who forward such theories are scam artists, who use claims of an easy out from paying taxes as a way to sell their books, tapes, and lectures. [3] This user's first edit to the article was to change an NPOV statement - that Schiff claims that taxes are applied incorrectly - to a POV declaration that Schiff shows taxes are applied incorrectly. [4]. This, despite the fact that Schiff has recently been sentenced to 13 years in prison for fraud based on a federal court finding that Schiff's claims about the tax code were nonsense. In short, this editor added a completely and provably false statement into the article, which I corrected. This editor then made a series of similar edits to the Schiff article, claiming for example that Schiff's encouraging people to break the law "helped many individuals" [5] (apparently based on "testimonials" on the website where Schiff sells his books from people who now feel good about cheating on their taxes), and adding links to Schiff's website that support Schiff's conspiracy theory. I did not remove these claims, but balanced them with additional information, including Schiff's own statement that "the entire federal judiciary is involved in a monumental, criminal conspiracy to collect income taxes in violation of law". He has behaved similarly with respect to other articles - here, Rawhide4u removed a large block of text added by another contributor who is an acknowledged expert on the tax code: [6]. I restored the text, and re-wrote some of it to make it more encyclopedic.
With respect to this user's activities on my talk page, there has been a notice posted atop the page all month long stating that I'm trying to take a Wikibreak, and asking users, "Please do not post messages here during my absence unless you have an emergency." Despite this notice, and my respectful request to keep the conversation in one place, this user made sixteen edits to my talk page, including restoring posts that I had archived (I pointed out to him early on exactly why I was removing those posts and where these posts were being archived [7], and I added links to my archives on my talk page just for his convenience [8]). Rawhide4u's conduct has been, frankly, trollish, e.g. "I should have known Irwin Schiff was written by an Attorney. Your attempt to "discredit" his findings seems quite obvious. In regard to Schiff's birth place, date, etc. I am NOT a fanatic of his. I just happen to know how to read the Internal Revenue Code Book. Perhaps you should acquire one, it may enlighten you." [9] (along with the clearly false statement that "there is NO law requiring individuals working, for a non-governmental company, are liable to pay income tax". Further posts to my talk page contained comments like "You are most definitely NOT a trial Attorney.... What University did you attend??....LOL" [10]; "Your analogy... is extremely poor. ... That University of yours is looking better every moment….LOL" [11] Despite his complaints about my archiving, he also deleted (without archiving) our conversation from his talk page [12]. And despite all this, he comes here to complain about me. Coincidentally, this comes a few weeks after I nominated another load of tax protester propaganda for deletion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tax Honesty Movement - it should come as no surprise that, shortly after this event, an editor who claims that there is no income tax and flaunts illegal conduct should seek to snipe at me until he gets a rise out of me, and then complain of my behavior. I have conducted myself properly with respect to this user and his factually incorrect, agenda-pushing edits, and I will engage in no mediation with one who so blatantly seeks to abuse the privilege of editing Wikipedia. bd2412 T 00:44, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Dear fellow editors: I second what BD2412 has written. Rawhide4u has made POV edits to tax related Wikipedia articles. I caught him or her in one instance removing, from a Wikipedia article, a direct quote from a primary legal source (the actual text of a statute) with the false statement that the quote was either not in the statute or was somehow irrelevant (I forget his/her exact words, but it's in the record). Rawhide4u seems to feel that direct quotes from primary legal sources regarding U.S. tax laws are somehow "biased" while his tax protester rhetoric is somehow not biased.
I should add that my introduction to Rawhide4u came about through an unsolicited post on my own talk page a few days ago, wherein he tried to lecture me for some reason on the legal niceties of section 3401 of the Internal Revenue Code. Prior to that post I was not even familiar with the name "Rawhide4u." His brief lecture consisted of a legally frivolous and only semi-coherent rehash of incorrect arguments about section 3401.
Rawhide4u seems to feel he is on an important mission. However, Wikipedia is not properly to be used as a cyberspace soapbox to try to convince or persuade people that legally frivolous conspiracy theories are somehow legally valid despite the fact that these theories have been uniformly rejected by the courts for the past thirty years. I'm sorry, but edits by Rawhide4u are subject to the same Wikipedia rules as those of any other editor, especially Verifiability and Neutral Point of View. Yours, Famspear 14:14, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
In an attempt to reduce the backlog of the case list, I have sifted through the first twenty cases or so and have found a majority of them to have no activity for 3 months +. I made a note on those that showed inactivity for this time and I hope to have them declared closed if there are no objections. If these cases are still requiring mediation then there should be no problem in re-aquiring the case from the archive section afterwards. Cowman109 Talk 03:29, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
In " I don't understand how the Mediation Cabal works" Kim Bruning wrote: The original mediation cabal was a kind of swarming phenomenon, where everyone went to each case together as a semi-team, and talked with all involved, and sorted it out. Typically Really Quick. Now it's being run by other folks, and it's more of a one-on-one thing, and more traditional, as I understand it. I wonder!
This may seem like a wierd idea - maybe its been tried before - but how about we get people to make a complaint on the main page, then have a subpage (largely freeform) for the mediation? -- I just end up deleting most of the stuff on the current subpage anyway.
e.g.
==User on [[Romanians]]== {{main|WP:MEDCAB/<name>}} Some user is doing something bad.
I probably haven't thought this through enough... but I think something needs to be done :) - FrancisTyers 12:24, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
The talk page is sometimes too noisy, especially when there is a heated debate. -- Fasten 06:35, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
What I meant to say was that the method and place for the mediation should be left to the mediator. It may be sensible to make quite different decisions depending on the case at hand. A very noisy crowd may require a mediation by email. Using the talk page may be convenient when the circumstances allow it. -- Fasten 19:12, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't know if I'd call it wise. If the dispute is on the talk page it may be difficult to make people use the mediation page instead but when people prefer the mediation page the advantage is that any other noise that may be occuring on the talk page is filtered out. The mediation page is also a better archive of a debate. On the other hand people sometimes just invent new problems on the talk page while the mediation is going on so it may be necessary to reply on the talk page. I think it mostly depends on the circumstances of the debate where and how mediation is preferable. One reason why mediation may be necessary is, unfortunately, that people are undisciplined. -- Fasten 20:38, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
I have removed this suggestion:
because it is problematic. In particular, we in general do not like to clutter up article pages with templates -- especially templates like this one, made by a particular informal wikipedia group. Yes, it would be nice if we could put a big banner saying "see the talk page", but we have a small banner already: the "discuss" tab. When there are special things going on, we still don't like article templates: see, for example, {{ Controversial}}. The only time a template should be used is when there is an explicit disagreement over the content of the article that can be named -- in which case it is likely that {{ neutrality}} or whatever is already up there. Sdedeo ( tips) 01:38, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi Fasten -- the way to handle this IMO is to put polite requests in the edit summary directing people to the talk page. Editors familiar enough with wikipedia to know how to get into an edit war also know how to read the edit summaries on the history page. I'm going to go ahead and modify the template so that it is similar to {{ Controversial}}; please revert my edits if you really feel that this template should go on article pages and we can discuss further. Sdedeo ( tips) 21:22, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
And annoted in the edit summary. The biggest change is that mediators don't so much advise as that they mediate agreement. :-)
Kim Bruning 01:06, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Oh dear, I might end up reverting entirely like this. Um, to prevent that, let's discuss the next line here:
I was definately aiming at the latter.
Note that a lot of these things are probably my own fault for being too terse. :-/
Kim Bruning 15:36, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Case closed, mediators final response... That can be read a wrong way... hmmm... Kim Bruning 13:39, 2 February 2006 (UTC)