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 |
---|
Often it will appear a case is stalled or inactive, since requesters forget to watchlist the casepage. Before closing a case as inactive, go to the talk page of the article in dispute and remind everyone of the MedCab request. Thanks! Xavexgoem ( talk) 16:27, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
See the village pump here for a proposal. Please comment and revise! Geoff Plourde ( talk) 07:18, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
On Wikipedia:Dispute resolution requests I read "Add {{subst:medcab-request}} to the section of the disputed article's talk page that requires mediation and save the page." It seems to me that no such template exists. So what should be done? And could sb change this text? Debresser ( talk) 21:40, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
KISS and make up? -- Kim Bruning ( talk) 18:25, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
See Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-09-15/Polish-Ukrainian WWII disputes. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 23:11, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Lately I've seen quite a few cases opened over simple edit warring, where what they really want is WP:AN3. Other cases are completely user conduct-based, and better suited to WP:ANI, as we don't impose judgments or sanctions on editors. One other thing i've noticed is that the noticeboards all have information at the top about where to take different kinds of disputes, so you don't post to the wrong one. Should we have a paragraph about what we do (i.e. that this is a voluntary process and parties must consent, etc) and where to take complaints over edit warring or user conduct? The Wordsmith(formerly known as Firestorm) Communicate 19:28, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
I have just created this article, how do I add it to the list? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2009-09-30/lightworker —Preceding unsigned comment added by Outelligent ( talk • contribs) 23:21, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi. How do I join? I would like to help mediate (articles that I don't edit), and also I have a couple articles that might need mediation in the future (1-2 of those that I edit). Dc76\ talk 23:33, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm happy to see that MedCab has so many more mediators active right now. I was losing optimism for our project, when our backlog of new cases numbered into the teens and we seemed to have very few mediators left. I am very happy to see our recent success and progress. As I consider mediation, and the mediation cabal in particular, as being at the forefront of WP's dispute resolution process, this is very good news indeed.
Therefore, I am starting a discussion on our IRC channel between mediators and any on-lookers to discuss our individual mediations, stories, strategies, and how MedCab and dispute resolution are working as a whole. I plan for it to be held sometime this month (October). If you are interested in having an open discussion and more free communication between DR-oriented Wikipedians, then please reply to this thread so we can organize this properly.
Our IRC forum is #wikipedia-medcab on the freenode network.
Thank you, and I await your reply. Xavexgoem ( talk) 00:15, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Aw, three people? What to do, what to do... Xavexgoem ( talk) 17:16, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
The mediator field on the Zeno's Paradoxes discussion is blank. Is there a mediator? I just thought I would check, as a mediation without a mediator is rather odd. — Finn Casey * * * 01:07, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Could we please have the case on Gibraltar re-opened please, User:Irbisgreif has prematurely closed the case claiming that one editor has withdrawn from mediation and that editors had lost confidence in the mediation process. Editors had in fact expressed doubts about User:Irbisgreif's role as mediatior and no one has withdrawn from the case, though one editor has gotten frustrated with the lack of direction. The only thing expressed about mediation was a consideration for requesting a new mediator. Justin talk 09:09, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
If someone is saying that you fail to grasp the dispute, you should ask whomever (Justin, in this case) how they see the dispute. How you can better accommodate them, etc... bearing in mind -- as I'm sure you did -- that how one side sees the dispute is often different than how the other side sees the dispute. This is important, as miscommunication between parties is the first thing that needs fixing. Often, you'll find 3 distinct disputes where one was reported. One might be NOR/V/RS-centered, one might be NPOV-centered, and another might be something that you (the mediator) can detect but that no-one else can (since parties tend to talk over each other after a point). Then synthesis these.
This is important largely because you need to be seen as giving the parties their fair shake. It is always preferable for a mediator to appear to be "siding" (i.e., talking-too-much-with) with one side than for the parties to distance themselves from you. So long as you can keep the balance in the end...
Xavexgoem (
talk)
20:12, 29 October 2009 (UTC) Or something like that :-p
I'm sorry for asking but I'm wondering if the Mediation Cabal I've filled in Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-10-18/Diablada is in order or is there anything missing? Because it haven't been attended yet and we're wondering how much does it take. Things got pretty tense there, to avoid more conflicts I'm not doing any editions till a mediator can come to help us out, but I hope that doesn't look like if the article is inactive. Can anyone please give it a look and tell me if there is something missing there?
Thank you -- Erebedhel - Talk 06:26, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
I would like to help out here - by what process can I become a mediator? Reubzz ( talk) 04:55, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm trying to submit the Blood+ article. However, when I put in "Blood+" and click on the "Click here to file request" button, it looks like it loads the actual article up. For example, if I do a preview, it looks like I would be submitting an update to the actual article. Yet when I follow the links for some of the open cases it looks like they link back to more info under MedCab, use a special template, etc. I tried with and without the beta. Am I missing something? I don't want to cause trouble by editing the main article! Thanks! Argel1200 ( talk) 20:54, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
I've noticed that there have been no new cases pending for a while now. While this is something I haven't seen in a while, it could be either good or bad. Does it mean that we have enough mediators to handle all the MedCab-worthy disputes around the wiki? Or does it mean that people having content disputes don't know about us or don't value us? Are we not fulfilling our purpose, or are we exceeding expectations? With no pending cases, now might be a good time for some naval-gazing. The Wordsmith Communicate 17:22, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Just put up a new case today, but for some reason, it doesn't show up in the listing. Can somebody help out it's here-- Ramdrake ( talk) 03:07, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
It appears that MedCabBot, which is responsible for maintaining the lists of cases, is broken. This means that we actually do have new cases, but the bot never added them to the template. I dropped a note at the bot owner's talk page, but it seems we're on our own for the time being. I added new cases to the appropriate section, but it needs to be maintained now. Periodically searching for Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-11-(today's date) and adding them to the template is the easiest way to do it. Also, for anyone who has an open case, please check to verify that your case is listed on the Open Cases section. If not, please add it in the appropriate manner. Thank you. The Wordsmith Communicate 09:14, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Is it normal that an editor with 10 days' experience on Wikipedia would become a mediator? There was a request for mediation put through for a highly problematic article, Race and intelligence and this mediator showed up. However, I am wondering how, with only 10 days' experience, he could be familiar enough with the intricacies of Wikipedia to mediate such a troubled article? Can somebody please look into the situation? Thanks!-- Ramdrake ( talk) 23:29, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
This greatly upsets me. While it was deleted from my profile page, I noted there that I was a "snooper" around WP to get a sense of the structure, the rules, and the guidelines. With this understanding, and a real world series of expierence in matters resolving conflicts, I thought the Mediation Cabal would be the perfect thing to fit my interests. With this particular case, even with a low edit count, I have managed it efficently. I have already delved great amounts of time into this case. I have ready lengthy statements, reviewed long-winded debates that are achieved for many years, read online articles (off-WP) on the disputed subject, read lengthy statements, and read and analyized the relevant guidelines. So far, the case has been managed professionally. I have sent out notifications to the parties involved when deadlines were present, I have managed a process that so far has been civil and in good-faith, and I have even been able to (for the time being) make the disputed content on the page at issue stable.
I have also extended an offer to participate as a co-mediator, to give Reubzz guidance in this mediation. He seems to be doing a fine job, but I am willing to supervise him and step in if it becomes clear that he is in over his head. The Wordsmith Communicate 00:33, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
I would appreciate the assistance of more expierenced mediators and welcome their help in this case. Reubzz ( talk) 01:34, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Just a note, informal mediation is completely voluntary from all sides. That means that if the editors involved don't care for the mediator who has volunteered to take the case, they can decline in favor of a new mediator. I'm currently assisting a case where the participants weren't satisfied with the previous mediator, and asked for a new one. So with that in mind, I don't think having requirements for the cabal is necessary. If you don't like the mediator for any reason, just request a new one. When I take interest in a case I first ask everyone involved whether they want my assistance or not. I haven't had a person decline, but if they did I would put the case back to "new" and let someone else have a crack at it. -- Atama 頭 20:37, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
I have been thinking about the process for content-dispute resolution. What happens if after MedCab and then MedCom, no consensus can be reached? On a purely content area, what is to happen if there is no enforcement body or binding-decision process for resolving it? - there is one in place for user issues (ArbCom), why not have one for the other branch?
Just some thoughts that came to mind. Cheers! -- Reubzz ( talk) 19:22, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
just like there is no cabal. So, to make it easier for us to determine if we have consent from all parties for mediation, i've revived an old template that Nicholas Turnbull (the second MedCab Coordinator) made. It can be posted to the users' talk pages, and used as following:
{{subst:Medcab participant|YourName|date/casename}}
for example:
== Mediation Cabal: Request for participation ==
Dear Mediation Cabal/2009 Archive 3: Hello, my name is Napoleon; 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 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, The Wordsmith Communicate 04:49, 21 November 2009 (UTC) |
I think i'll close with a haiku:
Here is a template
Feel free to use it, or don't
There is no cabal
The Wordsmith Communicate 04:49, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
My medcab case, Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-07-20/List of charities accused of ties to terrorism seems to be slipping through the cracks. The last exchange in the case brought all parties to agree that the matter could perhaps be resolved in the reliable sources notice board diff diff, however I have not heard back from User:GRuban, the other participant, and our moderator, User:Vicenarian has retired. For my part, I consider the issues here to be unresolved and need some help from medcab to keep my case from simply dying. Thanks in advance. Bonewah ( talk) 14:18, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm sure there is no one there to answer this question since the Cabal does not exist, but let me ask it just to hear the ball bearings rattle around in my head: I note that in formal mediation proceedings all participants in the dispute are required to agree to mediation before taking the case, but there's no such requirement on the request page here. The suggestions say that any party can back out, but is it just presumed that all the disputants are in until someone stops participating or backs out? — TRANSPORTERMAN ( TALK) 22:56, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
The situation at talk:Monty Hall problem is really getting out of control. I don't know if the requests are treated in strict FIFO order or what, but if someone could take a look at this issue (even to indicate an expected timeframe when/if someone might get engagaed) it would be quite helpful. Thanks. -- Rick Block ( talk) 15:34, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
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 |
---|
Often it will appear a case is stalled or inactive, since requesters forget to watchlist the casepage. Before closing a case as inactive, go to the talk page of the article in dispute and remind everyone of the MedCab request. Thanks! Xavexgoem ( talk) 16:27, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
See the village pump here for a proposal. Please comment and revise! Geoff Plourde ( talk) 07:18, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
On Wikipedia:Dispute resolution requests I read "Add {{subst:medcab-request}} to the section of the disputed article's talk page that requires mediation and save the page." It seems to me that no such template exists. So what should be done? And could sb change this text? Debresser ( talk) 21:40, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
KISS and make up? -- Kim Bruning ( talk) 18:25, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
See Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-09-15/Polish-Ukrainian WWII disputes. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 23:11, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Lately I've seen quite a few cases opened over simple edit warring, where what they really want is WP:AN3. Other cases are completely user conduct-based, and better suited to WP:ANI, as we don't impose judgments or sanctions on editors. One other thing i've noticed is that the noticeboards all have information at the top about where to take different kinds of disputes, so you don't post to the wrong one. Should we have a paragraph about what we do (i.e. that this is a voluntary process and parties must consent, etc) and where to take complaints over edit warring or user conduct? The Wordsmith(formerly known as Firestorm) Communicate 19:28, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
I have just created this article, how do I add it to the list? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2009-09-30/lightworker —Preceding unsigned comment added by Outelligent ( talk • contribs) 23:21, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi. How do I join? I would like to help mediate (articles that I don't edit), and also I have a couple articles that might need mediation in the future (1-2 of those that I edit). Dc76\ talk 23:33, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm happy to see that MedCab has so many more mediators active right now. I was losing optimism for our project, when our backlog of new cases numbered into the teens and we seemed to have very few mediators left. I am very happy to see our recent success and progress. As I consider mediation, and the mediation cabal in particular, as being at the forefront of WP's dispute resolution process, this is very good news indeed.
Therefore, I am starting a discussion on our IRC channel between mediators and any on-lookers to discuss our individual mediations, stories, strategies, and how MedCab and dispute resolution are working as a whole. I plan for it to be held sometime this month (October). If you are interested in having an open discussion and more free communication between DR-oriented Wikipedians, then please reply to this thread so we can organize this properly.
Our IRC forum is #wikipedia-medcab on the freenode network.
Thank you, and I await your reply. Xavexgoem ( talk) 00:15, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Aw, three people? What to do, what to do... Xavexgoem ( talk) 17:16, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
The mediator field on the Zeno's Paradoxes discussion is blank. Is there a mediator? I just thought I would check, as a mediation without a mediator is rather odd. — Finn Casey * * * 01:07, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Could we please have the case on Gibraltar re-opened please, User:Irbisgreif has prematurely closed the case claiming that one editor has withdrawn from mediation and that editors had lost confidence in the mediation process. Editors had in fact expressed doubts about User:Irbisgreif's role as mediatior and no one has withdrawn from the case, though one editor has gotten frustrated with the lack of direction. The only thing expressed about mediation was a consideration for requesting a new mediator. Justin talk 09:09, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
If someone is saying that you fail to grasp the dispute, you should ask whomever (Justin, in this case) how they see the dispute. How you can better accommodate them, etc... bearing in mind -- as I'm sure you did -- that how one side sees the dispute is often different than how the other side sees the dispute. This is important, as miscommunication between parties is the first thing that needs fixing. Often, you'll find 3 distinct disputes where one was reported. One might be NOR/V/RS-centered, one might be NPOV-centered, and another might be something that you (the mediator) can detect but that no-one else can (since parties tend to talk over each other after a point). Then synthesis these.
This is important largely because you need to be seen as giving the parties their fair shake. It is always preferable for a mediator to appear to be "siding" (i.e., talking-too-much-with) with one side than for the parties to distance themselves from you. So long as you can keep the balance in the end...
Xavexgoem (
talk)
20:12, 29 October 2009 (UTC) Or something like that :-p
I'm sorry for asking but I'm wondering if the Mediation Cabal I've filled in Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-10-18/Diablada is in order or is there anything missing? Because it haven't been attended yet and we're wondering how much does it take. Things got pretty tense there, to avoid more conflicts I'm not doing any editions till a mediator can come to help us out, but I hope that doesn't look like if the article is inactive. Can anyone please give it a look and tell me if there is something missing there?
Thank you -- Erebedhel - Talk 06:26, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
I would like to help out here - by what process can I become a mediator? Reubzz ( talk) 04:55, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm trying to submit the Blood+ article. However, when I put in "Blood+" and click on the "Click here to file request" button, it looks like it loads the actual article up. For example, if I do a preview, it looks like I would be submitting an update to the actual article. Yet when I follow the links for some of the open cases it looks like they link back to more info under MedCab, use a special template, etc. I tried with and without the beta. Am I missing something? I don't want to cause trouble by editing the main article! Thanks! Argel1200 ( talk) 20:54, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
I've noticed that there have been no new cases pending for a while now. While this is something I haven't seen in a while, it could be either good or bad. Does it mean that we have enough mediators to handle all the MedCab-worthy disputes around the wiki? Or does it mean that people having content disputes don't know about us or don't value us? Are we not fulfilling our purpose, or are we exceeding expectations? With no pending cases, now might be a good time for some naval-gazing. The Wordsmith Communicate 17:22, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Just put up a new case today, but for some reason, it doesn't show up in the listing. Can somebody help out it's here-- Ramdrake ( talk) 03:07, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
It appears that MedCabBot, which is responsible for maintaining the lists of cases, is broken. This means that we actually do have new cases, but the bot never added them to the template. I dropped a note at the bot owner's talk page, but it seems we're on our own for the time being. I added new cases to the appropriate section, but it needs to be maintained now. Periodically searching for Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-11-(today's date) and adding them to the template is the easiest way to do it. Also, for anyone who has an open case, please check to verify that your case is listed on the Open Cases section. If not, please add it in the appropriate manner. Thank you. The Wordsmith Communicate 09:14, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Is it normal that an editor with 10 days' experience on Wikipedia would become a mediator? There was a request for mediation put through for a highly problematic article, Race and intelligence and this mediator showed up. However, I am wondering how, with only 10 days' experience, he could be familiar enough with the intricacies of Wikipedia to mediate such a troubled article? Can somebody please look into the situation? Thanks!-- Ramdrake ( talk) 23:29, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
This greatly upsets me. While it was deleted from my profile page, I noted there that I was a "snooper" around WP to get a sense of the structure, the rules, and the guidelines. With this understanding, and a real world series of expierence in matters resolving conflicts, I thought the Mediation Cabal would be the perfect thing to fit my interests. With this particular case, even with a low edit count, I have managed it efficently. I have already delved great amounts of time into this case. I have ready lengthy statements, reviewed long-winded debates that are achieved for many years, read online articles (off-WP) on the disputed subject, read lengthy statements, and read and analyized the relevant guidelines. So far, the case has been managed professionally. I have sent out notifications to the parties involved when deadlines were present, I have managed a process that so far has been civil and in good-faith, and I have even been able to (for the time being) make the disputed content on the page at issue stable.
I have also extended an offer to participate as a co-mediator, to give Reubzz guidance in this mediation. He seems to be doing a fine job, but I am willing to supervise him and step in if it becomes clear that he is in over his head. The Wordsmith Communicate 00:33, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
I would appreciate the assistance of more expierenced mediators and welcome their help in this case. Reubzz ( talk) 01:34, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Just a note, informal mediation is completely voluntary from all sides. That means that if the editors involved don't care for the mediator who has volunteered to take the case, they can decline in favor of a new mediator. I'm currently assisting a case where the participants weren't satisfied with the previous mediator, and asked for a new one. So with that in mind, I don't think having requirements for the cabal is necessary. If you don't like the mediator for any reason, just request a new one. When I take interest in a case I first ask everyone involved whether they want my assistance or not. I haven't had a person decline, but if they did I would put the case back to "new" and let someone else have a crack at it. -- Atama 頭 20:37, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
I have been thinking about the process for content-dispute resolution. What happens if after MedCab and then MedCom, no consensus can be reached? On a purely content area, what is to happen if there is no enforcement body or binding-decision process for resolving it? - there is one in place for user issues (ArbCom), why not have one for the other branch?
Just some thoughts that came to mind. Cheers! -- Reubzz ( talk) 19:22, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
just like there is no cabal. So, to make it easier for us to determine if we have consent from all parties for mediation, i've revived an old template that Nicholas Turnbull (the second MedCab Coordinator) made. It can be posted to the users' talk pages, and used as following:
{{subst:Medcab participant|YourName|date/casename}}
for example:
== Mediation Cabal: Request for participation ==
Dear Mediation Cabal/2009 Archive 3: Hello, my name is Napoleon; 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 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, The Wordsmith Communicate 04:49, 21 November 2009 (UTC) |
I think i'll close with a haiku:
Here is a template
Feel free to use it, or don't
There is no cabal
The Wordsmith Communicate 04:49, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
My medcab case, Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-07-20/List of charities accused of ties to terrorism seems to be slipping through the cracks. The last exchange in the case brought all parties to agree that the matter could perhaps be resolved in the reliable sources notice board diff diff, however I have not heard back from User:GRuban, the other participant, and our moderator, User:Vicenarian has retired. For my part, I consider the issues here to be unresolved and need some help from medcab to keep my case from simply dying. Thanks in advance. Bonewah ( talk) 14:18, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm sure there is no one there to answer this question since the Cabal does not exist, but let me ask it just to hear the ball bearings rattle around in my head: I note that in formal mediation proceedings all participants in the dispute are required to agree to mediation before taking the case, but there's no such requirement on the request page here. The suggestions say that any party can back out, but is it just presumed that all the disputants are in until someone stops participating or backs out? — TRANSPORTERMAN ( TALK) 22:56, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
The situation at talk:Monty Hall problem is really getting out of control. I don't know if the requests are treated in strict FIFO order or what, but if someone could take a look at this issue (even to indicate an expected timeframe when/if someone might get engagaed) it would be quite helpful. Thanks. -- Rick Block ( talk) 15:34, 15 December 2009 (UTC)