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 |
---|
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)
Hello I am in the middle of a dispute with another editor. It is getting to the point that I think WP:AGF is becoming hard to apply. To avoid further deterioration I suggested mediation to which I thought I would get an automatic yes, but instead what I got in response was "Mediation is unsuitable for such disputes, as explained at WP:Mediation." Good faith or no I do not trust the other editor's interpretation of Wikipedia guidelines. Related discussions of issues involved have already taken place on the talk page of the said article, the talk page of another article where we had another disagreement, and two noticeboards. In each case, when third parties gave opinions, some in general some specific to my case, they all supported the rationale for my edits. From the discussion above it would seem both parties involved in a disagreement should acknowledge this process for it to be a success. Given the response I received what next should be done? From my point-of-view it would seem I either appease the other editor, edit war with the other editor, go ahead with a mediation process anyway, or report at WP:ANI. Are there any other options? Thank you. Lambanog ( talk) 15:18, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
How do you close a case? The dispute over Authorship of the Bible seems to have been resolved. RomanHistorian ( talk) 15:39, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
What should be done when one's esteemed mediator goes offwiki for 2.5 weeks? The case is longevity myths, I already left a talk message that the mediator responded to but didn't follow up on, and there is much unresolved that I would like to consider in-process rather than out-of-. JJB 21:48, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Hello, Cabalists and Cabalettets! If you've seen the "test" cases on the frontpage, let me explain what's going on. I'm trying to figure out a way to do away with the inclusion of dates in case names. Its ugly, it was a kludge to solve a bot issue years ago, and I can never remember the exact date a case was opened to find it again without looking at the list of cases (God help me if I want to find it again after its been closed!). In short, I'd like to make everyone's lives a little easier by removing a bit of unnecessary stuff.
The problem that I see is with having the bot list cases in the appropriate order. As you can see from the case listings, the bot lists them in alphabetical order from 1-9 and then A-Z. That's how including the date makes it list in date order. What I would like to do is figure out how to get it to list in the appropriate order without modifying the bot. Does anyone have an idea on how to do that? The Wordsmith Communicate 05:36, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Should we be discouraging parties from saying "such-and-such-element-in-contention has consensus"? You'll read this a lot in opening statements. You read that and it's hard not to think you'll be communicating with a brick wall. It angers the opposition party, as well. We really should be reminding parties that the reason they're here is because these elements don't have consensus.
I at least recommend that mediators first get these parties to agree that there isn't consensus, as a sort of "opening play". This clears the air somewhat between parties, since at least that side stops appearing so obstinant. You'll have to make a few nimble decisions if they don't initially agree, since you don't want to create the appearance that you're against them.
If you don't clear this air first, you'll get a huge mess of miscommunication, and inevitably the conflict will become more behavioral. I'm really starting to believe that there's a behavioral threshold that, once passed, makes a dispute nearly impossible to solve with mediation. (Some mediators are better at taking advantage of parties' behavioral issues, though, but this is inherently risky). Xavexgoem ( talk) 19:58, 12 November 2010 (UTC) While I'm on a roll, I'd argue there are broadly three kinds of disputes, all with overlap: (1) behavioral, (2) content (how neutral, how reliable, how fringe), (3) rules (naive interpretations of policies and guidelines). I'll bet that (3) is the biggest. This has interesting overlap with the policy trifecta (DICK, NPOV, IAR, respectively, for certain values of IAR)
Should the bot have added Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-11-21/Kendrick mass to the Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases list? Thanks. -- Kkmurray ( talk) 04:09, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
It seems that the bot is either broken or is going really slowly. I marked Ganas as open yesterday and it hasn't been updated yet. Mr R00t Talk 'tribs 23:32, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Is there a uniform template that informs users of a case that can be posted on parties' walls? -- Lord Roem ( talk) 21:56, 31 December 2010 (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 |
---|
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)
Hello I am in the middle of a dispute with another editor. It is getting to the point that I think WP:AGF is becoming hard to apply. To avoid further deterioration I suggested mediation to which I thought I would get an automatic yes, but instead what I got in response was "Mediation is unsuitable for such disputes, as explained at WP:Mediation." Good faith or no I do not trust the other editor's interpretation of Wikipedia guidelines. Related discussions of issues involved have already taken place on the talk page of the said article, the talk page of another article where we had another disagreement, and two noticeboards. In each case, when third parties gave opinions, some in general some specific to my case, they all supported the rationale for my edits. From the discussion above it would seem both parties involved in a disagreement should acknowledge this process for it to be a success. Given the response I received what next should be done? From my point-of-view it would seem I either appease the other editor, edit war with the other editor, go ahead with a mediation process anyway, or report at WP:ANI. Are there any other options? Thank you. Lambanog ( talk) 15:18, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
How do you close a case? The dispute over Authorship of the Bible seems to have been resolved. RomanHistorian ( talk) 15:39, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
What should be done when one's esteemed mediator goes offwiki for 2.5 weeks? The case is longevity myths, I already left a talk message that the mediator responded to but didn't follow up on, and there is much unresolved that I would like to consider in-process rather than out-of-. JJB 21:48, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Hello, Cabalists and Cabalettets! If you've seen the "test" cases on the frontpage, let me explain what's going on. I'm trying to figure out a way to do away with the inclusion of dates in case names. Its ugly, it was a kludge to solve a bot issue years ago, and I can never remember the exact date a case was opened to find it again without looking at the list of cases (God help me if I want to find it again after its been closed!). In short, I'd like to make everyone's lives a little easier by removing a bit of unnecessary stuff.
The problem that I see is with having the bot list cases in the appropriate order. As you can see from the case listings, the bot lists them in alphabetical order from 1-9 and then A-Z. That's how including the date makes it list in date order. What I would like to do is figure out how to get it to list in the appropriate order without modifying the bot. Does anyone have an idea on how to do that? The Wordsmith Communicate 05:36, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Should we be discouraging parties from saying "such-and-such-element-in-contention has consensus"? You'll read this a lot in opening statements. You read that and it's hard not to think you'll be communicating with a brick wall. It angers the opposition party, as well. We really should be reminding parties that the reason they're here is because these elements don't have consensus.
I at least recommend that mediators first get these parties to agree that there isn't consensus, as a sort of "opening play". This clears the air somewhat between parties, since at least that side stops appearing so obstinant. You'll have to make a few nimble decisions if they don't initially agree, since you don't want to create the appearance that you're against them.
If you don't clear this air first, you'll get a huge mess of miscommunication, and inevitably the conflict will become more behavioral. I'm really starting to believe that there's a behavioral threshold that, once passed, makes a dispute nearly impossible to solve with mediation. (Some mediators are better at taking advantage of parties' behavioral issues, though, but this is inherently risky). Xavexgoem ( talk) 19:58, 12 November 2010 (UTC) While I'm on a roll, I'd argue there are broadly three kinds of disputes, all with overlap: (1) behavioral, (2) content (how neutral, how reliable, how fringe), (3) rules (naive interpretations of policies and guidelines). I'll bet that (3) is the biggest. This has interesting overlap with the policy trifecta (DICK, NPOV, IAR, respectively, for certain values of IAR)
Should the bot have added Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-11-21/Kendrick mass to the Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases list? Thanks. -- Kkmurray ( talk) 04:09, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
It seems that the bot is either broken or is going really slowly. I marked Ganas as open yesterday and it hasn't been updated yet. Mr R00t Talk 'tribs 23:32, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Is there a uniform template that informs users of a case that can be posted on parties' walls? -- Lord Roem ( talk) 21:56, 31 December 2010 (UTC)