![]() | This 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. |
Community enforceable mediation has entered a 90 day experimental phase. Other mediation venues often get backlogged so mediators may wish to refer some cases to this new program. Suitable cases would have:
Regards, Durova Charge! 15:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure if this is the right place to ask, but the WWII mediation is not going so well. Could someone from the committee take a look, please? Haber 21:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
There has been an ongoing debate on the Northern Ireland article's talk page for about six months now. The issue had come up before that too. In centres on what, if any, flag should be used in the infobox. I just want to get an opinion on whether this is worth requesting formal mediation for. All parties have made their points over and over, without getting anywhere. I suspect that if mediation is initiated this will just happen again. I'm also told that Arbcom will most reject it as a content dispute. Any guidance would be appreciated. Stu ’Bout ye! 11:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
I'd be grateful if any of the Mediation Committee have an opinion on whether this situation is mediatable. I previously posted this request here. The issue started on the Northern Ireland page six months ago, over the use of the Ulster Banner (or any other flag) in the country infobox. It has now spread to the use of the Ulster Banner on templates and other pages. I'm not going to state my position as I want to present this neutrally. See Talk:Northern Ireland, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Flag Template#Proposal for warning against inappropriate use of Northern Ireland flag templates, Talk:List of British flags, Template:British Isles, Template talk:UKFlags, Template talk:United Kingdom regions, Template talk:Country data Northern Ireland and probably have a dozen other places. This has resulted in numerous edit wars. Both sides have valid points and no outcome is foreseeable. Needless to say, this needs to be sorted out. It's causing far too much disruption to several articles. I'm unsure whether mediation will work, the issue has been discussed over and over. I'm told Arbcom will reject it as a content dispute, but Im starting to think a enforced decision will be the only solution. Stu ’Bout ye! 10:49, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Mr.Z-man, who is not listed as a member of the Committee, has
— SlamDiego 03:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
I am now informed that there is a difference between the Mediation Cabal and Mediation Committee. — SlamDiego 04:30, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
After the BadlyDrawnJeff block I've decided to file an appeal for Wikipedia:Mediation Committee/Nominations/jbolden1517. That was the only disciplinary action I've ever been subjected to on wikipedia and it was based on IRC conversations that I was not even invited to respond to. Its been almost a year the injustice of that incident continues to be a constant source of irritation. I've decided at least for myself enough is enough. However virtually the entire committee has changed membership since that time. Further after the people I was mediating for (and other observers) in large numbers commented on the job I was doing. Quite simply I proved my qualifications well beyond what is normally expected. I request that either:
jbolden1517 Talk 15:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
There is no procedure for appealing a rejected request to join the Mediation Committee. The Committe declines to revisit the outcome of
Wikipedia:Mediation Committee/Nominations/jbolden1517. You are free to make a new application at any time.
Ral what possible evidence could you be examining that involved confidentiality reasons that isn't secret evidence? Don't you understand that is exactly what I'm complaining about regarding the entire process? Its also the reason I think its a good precedent regarding the use of IRC? There was evidence that was what you meaningful made your decision on, "A user who I trust completely has raised issues about jbolden1517's work on the Mediation Cabal" which I never saw (no diffs...) that to this day you won't even discuss (yes Kim told you stuff). Nobody on wiki ever accused me of being a bad mediator (except for the one convicted guy and his friend). Even the people who thought I was a lousy coordinator considered me a very good mediator and certainly agreed with at the time that I was taking some of the hardest cases and driving them to conclusion. Even the coordinator who felt that Kim was god and therefore I shouldn't be part of medcab didn't dispute that medcom would be a fit. If you had been hunting down the quote you pulled on wiki rather than making a choice in IRC and then trying to find a diff to justify that would have seen a pattern of harassment and wikistalking (by Kim) as well as me attempting to resolve the problem like a mediator should. But you were made up your mind based on secret evidence. And that's the reason I think this entire application should be vacated. A trial occurred off wiki on IRC and then had on wiki effects. If this had been a genuine failed nom based on me taking an improper tone and responding improperly to Kim I still wouldn't be upset about it. I really don't even care that much about membership in medcom (at this point, at the time I was devastated which is why Kim did it). But that wasn't what really happened and what really happened is a perfectly good example of why IRC is pernicious in its influence on wiki. In many ways a better example then badlydrawnjeff's example because a year later the admins responsible still feel they did the right thing. Also they were very experienced admins with a long history of handling difficult cases. They just happen to believe in the use of IRC. In essence, "I examined secret evidence carefully, heard secret testimony and then acted". Moreover, you are standing behind it, which is good for a precedent. And that's why I think it makes sense as a test case. It establishes the precedent clearly of IRC. Better IMHO than the Giano case as well. jbolden1517 Talk 11:00, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Neighborhood arbitrator checking in before things get too far along. If you seek arbitration, which policies do you intend to assert were violated, and what redress would you seek from the Arbitration Committee? Best, Mackensen (talk) 16:55, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi Mack. I'm thinking of linking this case with the IRC related case or starting a new one. As I mentioned above I think is a cleaner example of the IRC related issues that are already coming before arbcom. What I would be aiming for is to establish precedent that
People shouldn't be banned, blocked, tossed off committees, etc... based on consensus reached on IRC. I am not trying to establish any particular misconduct on Wisden, Ral or the Medcom's part other than the above occurred while policy on it was still vague. The result of the case would be that my previous nomination would be vacated, that is the process used to determine the outcome would be declared illicit and thus the outcome invalid. I'd want a note to that effect attached to the page (something like "arbcom has ruled that this nomination's effect be vacated due to illicit process"). At that point I wouldn't be a member of medcom since no nomination would have ever occurred. So the practical effect would be nil (except regarding clarification of policy). Again this is what makes it a pure case regarding IRC:
Hope that answers what you were looking for :-) best, jbolden1517 Talk 17:43, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Some thoughts: if I read this correctly, you're pre-supposing that the Mediation Committee is required to function by consensus when selecting members, and that members conducting private discussion amongst themselves automatically nullifies any on-wiki decisions. I don't think that follows, and I'd appreciate extrapolation on these points. Furthermore, the Arbitration Committee has long taken the position (originally in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Njyoder), and is about to do so again (unless something drastic changes) in Hkelkar 2, that off-wiki evidence (IRC, chat logs, emails, newsgroup postings) have little or no bearing on the dispute resolution process as the events concerned took place off-wiki. In rare exceptions, such as the de-sysoping of Everyking, the off-wiki event was directly tied to a possible (and, believed, probable) misuse of admin tools on-wiki. Mackensen (talk) 18:05, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure you are reading this correctly. My point was there was no on wiki discussion. That wasn't even any off wiki discussion that I attended. There was off wiki discussion (IRC) involving Ral, Wisden and Kim about me. Then Ral switched to oppose and Wisden opposed. Nomination goes down in flames based on off wiki conversation. Essjay (also an IRCer) does some other questionable stuff which moves 2 oppose to 3 oppose. At no point was there any on wiki misconduct. The on wiki evidence is very clear cut. This sort of conspiracy involving IRC is what people who complain about IRC are upset about. Had everything just stayed in IRC I wouldn't have known about it (I use IRC 2x a year or so). jbolden1517 Talk 18:32, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Let me put this a different way: is there a justifiable expectation that the Mediation Committee will discuss appointments on-wiki? Are they required, in policy or by convention, to do so? Is it fair to allege that members of a committee, who are expected to act in concert, are engaging in a conspiracy by discussing matters amongst themselves? Mackensen (talk) 19:26, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
I think we're getting somewhere here, but as always I have more questions. You're taking the position that this was a 'secret trial' and that you were not permitted to rebut a third party's arguments, and that you were subsequently black-balled from the Mediation Committee. Now, each member of the Mediation Committee is permitted to vote as they please, based on what information they've gathered about a candidate. That you were given no opportunity for 'rebuttal', as it were, suggests that no member deemed your input necessary. The important question, then, is whether a member of the Mediation Committee is obligated to seek such input, or any input, before making a decision. The Mediation Committee didn't seek your input and decided not to appoint you. Were they obligated to seek your input? In effect, can Wikipedia policy curtail the off-Wikipedia activities of its users? Mackensen (talk) 20:43, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Remember I'm not asking to be made part of the committee by arbcom. I can clearly see where there might be jurisdictional issues there. Again in terms of redress I'm asking for a judgement vacating the original rejection. That is arbcom would merely rule that they consider the process by which I was reject illicit. They wouldn't be asked to change composition of medcom in any way. Now I guess you could assert that arbcom doesn't even have want amounts to editorial powers, that is right to make a comment but I find that a stretch. Moreover even if this were true it still wouldn't matter. What key in this case is the finding of fact that IRC did in fact interfere with an on wiki process involving a 3rd party not present on IRC. That is IRC having an on wiki effect. At least in my reading of many of the IRC cases and disputes, the assertion is that sort of thing can't happen. People aren't punished for things they do off wiki. And that's something you missed in your summary. The complaint was made off wiki and the events were off wiki. As far as the IRC issue, arbcom could easily have a finding of fact that this is precisely what happened in this case even if they asserted they lack jurisdiction to correct the problem in any way. It was the IRC issue that started this whole thing. The medcom process are non appealable and not subject to review or oversight is apparently the defense that IRC abuse didn't occur. In other words abuse is impossible because Jimbo's intent in establishing this committee is that the nomination process would exist without any constraints of behavior. I think medcom would need to prove that in the case. Its a very strong statement. jbolden1517 Talk 23:08, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
The Mediation Committee has our " two oppose rule". It simply states that any two Mediators opposing any nomination will cause the nomination to fail. It does not have to be for on-wiki reasons, it does not have to be for what you perceive as legitimate reasons, it just has to happen. For all intents and purposes, Ral315 could've said "Oppose because he likes the color blue and I don't." While it wouldn't necessarily be fair, it would still be within our policies. As two oppositions were the cause of your nomination's failure, it is essentially a moot point. Off-wiki discussions (via IRC and our mailing list) are very valuable to our decision making process on accepting/declining new nominations to the Committee. As Anthony is aware, we discussed his first nomination off-wiki on the mailing list. You don't see him looking to get it overturned, do you? He simply waited and then reapplied. Finally, other than in our conduct as individual editors, the Arbitration Committee holds no jurisdiction over our functionality as an official Wikipedia Committee, just as they have no say in what goes into the Signpost, what features articles go on the homepage, or (while it existed) who the leaders of Esperanza were. We were co-founded by Jimbo for different purposes, and we do not hold a checks-and-balances system over each other. We are designed to function individually and by our own means and processes, which we have done for almost three and a half years without incident. Further attempts to make a point about off-wiki communications by disrupting this Committee will not be tolerated and I respectfully ask you to stop. Simply put, your original request to have us revisit your nomination has been denied, the Mediation Committee will not allow our processes to go before Arbitration, and it should be left at that.
I don't know if you want to use them, but I've just created some templates for you guys to properly close nominations for mediators.
If you want to use them then go ahead, if not, it's no big deal. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't know if it's something wrong with the bot, but it left two identical messages of a mediation being closed on my talk page. Just wanted to let you know. Parsecboy 12:26, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
I was moved to the Mediators Emeriti page about a year ago, and since then I have been enjoying my retirement. According to the various edit counters, though, this month has been my most active month of editing ever and I feel like my Wiki-time isn't being used as efficiently as it could be. As such, I have listed myself as an active mediator and I am ready to fill any role needed. Andre ( talk) 02:45, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
What character traits do you look for in prospective Committee members? Dagomar 19:14, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Recently, MediationBot1 has been sending mediation notifications to User:Example [1], which is not a real account (it exists, but it's not an active user). This is probably due to Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Sample listing that account by default, which means that in malformed cases like Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Evan_Dobelle (the case that triggered the posts in question), it may remain listed or even be the only user listed. Could whomever is currently maintaining the bot please see to it that it doesn't send needless messages to this account? — Gavia immer (talk) 19:34, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Whoever is running this bot, it is spamming my talk page. Please stop. Crum375 20:21, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Hello. I'm wondering whether it is normal for MediationBot to provide three notifications of a rejected case over the course of half a day. That seems excessive to me, and I wonder whether the bot is malfunctioning or whether I need to do something to stop the notifications. Thanks. -- Tkynerd 17:50, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
I spotted this debate where some editors suggest the MedCom is in need of reform. This may be worth discussing, and this talk page appears to be the most appropriate spot. >Radiant< 12:30, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
I think it would be helpful if those who have concerns about what we do and how raise them here so a discussion can be held. We are very willing to respond to questions and enter into discussion. Some of the comments in the MfD are rather of the sort of "this sounds odd and isn't how other processes are run". This is true, but I think people need to gain a good understanding of what we are doing in order to determine if change is needed and, if so, to make positive suggestions for such change. If reform is needed, a case needs to be made for it and it is better for decisions to be fully discussed here than for the Committee to try and guess what changes the Community would like. So by all means, raise concerns on this talkpage - we will explain why we do things the way we do and perhaps with everyone talking things over better arrangements can be come to. We are particularly interested to here if there are examples of circumstances when either (a) the wrong people have been appointed (or not appointed) to the Committee or (b) of areas where the stucture of MedCom has meant that a dispute has been dealt with in a sub-optimal manner. WjB scribe 16:27, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
The few issues I saw in the MFD seemed to be related to the bureaucracy. This was, for the most part, inherent since the beginning of MedCom, partially because a mediator needs a high level of trust - a mediator needs to be able to hold the confidence of all parties involved, no matter what the consequences of doing so may be. The Chair position isn't really bureaucratic at all - we elect a member from within ourselves to handle the dirty work, assign cases, etc. I'm open to change, but there wasn't any discussion at the MFD about what to change. I hope some discussion will occur here. Ral315 » 22:27, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Just a thought. It seems like the "chair" covers most of the stuff, but I think it would take a lot of the work load off one person. CO 2 22:09, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
![]() | This 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. |
Community enforceable mediation has entered a 90 day experimental phase. Other mediation venues often get backlogged so mediators may wish to refer some cases to this new program. Suitable cases would have:
Regards, Durova Charge! 15:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure if this is the right place to ask, but the WWII mediation is not going so well. Could someone from the committee take a look, please? Haber 21:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
There has been an ongoing debate on the Northern Ireland article's talk page for about six months now. The issue had come up before that too. In centres on what, if any, flag should be used in the infobox. I just want to get an opinion on whether this is worth requesting formal mediation for. All parties have made their points over and over, without getting anywhere. I suspect that if mediation is initiated this will just happen again. I'm also told that Arbcom will most reject it as a content dispute. Any guidance would be appreciated. Stu ’Bout ye! 11:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
I'd be grateful if any of the Mediation Committee have an opinion on whether this situation is mediatable. I previously posted this request here. The issue started on the Northern Ireland page six months ago, over the use of the Ulster Banner (or any other flag) in the country infobox. It has now spread to the use of the Ulster Banner on templates and other pages. I'm not going to state my position as I want to present this neutrally. See Talk:Northern Ireland, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Flag Template#Proposal for warning against inappropriate use of Northern Ireland flag templates, Talk:List of British flags, Template:British Isles, Template talk:UKFlags, Template talk:United Kingdom regions, Template talk:Country data Northern Ireland and probably have a dozen other places. This has resulted in numerous edit wars. Both sides have valid points and no outcome is foreseeable. Needless to say, this needs to be sorted out. It's causing far too much disruption to several articles. I'm unsure whether mediation will work, the issue has been discussed over and over. I'm told Arbcom will reject it as a content dispute, but Im starting to think a enforced decision will be the only solution. Stu ’Bout ye! 10:49, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Mr.Z-man, who is not listed as a member of the Committee, has
— SlamDiego 03:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
I am now informed that there is a difference between the Mediation Cabal and Mediation Committee. — SlamDiego 04:30, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
After the BadlyDrawnJeff block I've decided to file an appeal for Wikipedia:Mediation Committee/Nominations/jbolden1517. That was the only disciplinary action I've ever been subjected to on wikipedia and it was based on IRC conversations that I was not even invited to respond to. Its been almost a year the injustice of that incident continues to be a constant source of irritation. I've decided at least for myself enough is enough. However virtually the entire committee has changed membership since that time. Further after the people I was mediating for (and other observers) in large numbers commented on the job I was doing. Quite simply I proved my qualifications well beyond what is normally expected. I request that either:
jbolden1517 Talk 15:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
There is no procedure for appealing a rejected request to join the Mediation Committee. The Committe declines to revisit the outcome of
Wikipedia:Mediation Committee/Nominations/jbolden1517. You are free to make a new application at any time.
Ral what possible evidence could you be examining that involved confidentiality reasons that isn't secret evidence? Don't you understand that is exactly what I'm complaining about regarding the entire process? Its also the reason I think its a good precedent regarding the use of IRC? There was evidence that was what you meaningful made your decision on, "A user who I trust completely has raised issues about jbolden1517's work on the Mediation Cabal" which I never saw (no diffs...) that to this day you won't even discuss (yes Kim told you stuff). Nobody on wiki ever accused me of being a bad mediator (except for the one convicted guy and his friend). Even the people who thought I was a lousy coordinator considered me a very good mediator and certainly agreed with at the time that I was taking some of the hardest cases and driving them to conclusion. Even the coordinator who felt that Kim was god and therefore I shouldn't be part of medcab didn't dispute that medcom would be a fit. If you had been hunting down the quote you pulled on wiki rather than making a choice in IRC and then trying to find a diff to justify that would have seen a pattern of harassment and wikistalking (by Kim) as well as me attempting to resolve the problem like a mediator should. But you were made up your mind based on secret evidence. And that's the reason I think this entire application should be vacated. A trial occurred off wiki on IRC and then had on wiki effects. If this had been a genuine failed nom based on me taking an improper tone and responding improperly to Kim I still wouldn't be upset about it. I really don't even care that much about membership in medcom (at this point, at the time I was devastated which is why Kim did it). But that wasn't what really happened and what really happened is a perfectly good example of why IRC is pernicious in its influence on wiki. In many ways a better example then badlydrawnjeff's example because a year later the admins responsible still feel they did the right thing. Also they were very experienced admins with a long history of handling difficult cases. They just happen to believe in the use of IRC. In essence, "I examined secret evidence carefully, heard secret testimony and then acted". Moreover, you are standing behind it, which is good for a precedent. And that's why I think it makes sense as a test case. It establishes the precedent clearly of IRC. Better IMHO than the Giano case as well. jbolden1517 Talk 11:00, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Neighborhood arbitrator checking in before things get too far along. If you seek arbitration, which policies do you intend to assert were violated, and what redress would you seek from the Arbitration Committee? Best, Mackensen (talk) 16:55, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi Mack. I'm thinking of linking this case with the IRC related case or starting a new one. As I mentioned above I think is a cleaner example of the IRC related issues that are already coming before arbcom. What I would be aiming for is to establish precedent that
People shouldn't be banned, blocked, tossed off committees, etc... based on consensus reached on IRC. I am not trying to establish any particular misconduct on Wisden, Ral or the Medcom's part other than the above occurred while policy on it was still vague. The result of the case would be that my previous nomination would be vacated, that is the process used to determine the outcome would be declared illicit and thus the outcome invalid. I'd want a note to that effect attached to the page (something like "arbcom has ruled that this nomination's effect be vacated due to illicit process"). At that point I wouldn't be a member of medcom since no nomination would have ever occurred. So the practical effect would be nil (except regarding clarification of policy). Again this is what makes it a pure case regarding IRC:
Hope that answers what you were looking for :-) best, jbolden1517 Talk 17:43, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Some thoughts: if I read this correctly, you're pre-supposing that the Mediation Committee is required to function by consensus when selecting members, and that members conducting private discussion amongst themselves automatically nullifies any on-wiki decisions. I don't think that follows, and I'd appreciate extrapolation on these points. Furthermore, the Arbitration Committee has long taken the position (originally in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Njyoder), and is about to do so again (unless something drastic changes) in Hkelkar 2, that off-wiki evidence (IRC, chat logs, emails, newsgroup postings) have little or no bearing on the dispute resolution process as the events concerned took place off-wiki. In rare exceptions, such as the de-sysoping of Everyking, the off-wiki event was directly tied to a possible (and, believed, probable) misuse of admin tools on-wiki. Mackensen (talk) 18:05, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure you are reading this correctly. My point was there was no on wiki discussion. That wasn't even any off wiki discussion that I attended. There was off wiki discussion (IRC) involving Ral, Wisden and Kim about me. Then Ral switched to oppose and Wisden opposed. Nomination goes down in flames based on off wiki conversation. Essjay (also an IRCer) does some other questionable stuff which moves 2 oppose to 3 oppose. At no point was there any on wiki misconduct. The on wiki evidence is very clear cut. This sort of conspiracy involving IRC is what people who complain about IRC are upset about. Had everything just stayed in IRC I wouldn't have known about it (I use IRC 2x a year or so). jbolden1517 Talk 18:32, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Let me put this a different way: is there a justifiable expectation that the Mediation Committee will discuss appointments on-wiki? Are they required, in policy or by convention, to do so? Is it fair to allege that members of a committee, who are expected to act in concert, are engaging in a conspiracy by discussing matters amongst themselves? Mackensen (talk) 19:26, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
I think we're getting somewhere here, but as always I have more questions. You're taking the position that this was a 'secret trial' and that you were not permitted to rebut a third party's arguments, and that you were subsequently black-balled from the Mediation Committee. Now, each member of the Mediation Committee is permitted to vote as they please, based on what information they've gathered about a candidate. That you were given no opportunity for 'rebuttal', as it were, suggests that no member deemed your input necessary. The important question, then, is whether a member of the Mediation Committee is obligated to seek such input, or any input, before making a decision. The Mediation Committee didn't seek your input and decided not to appoint you. Were they obligated to seek your input? In effect, can Wikipedia policy curtail the off-Wikipedia activities of its users? Mackensen (talk) 20:43, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Remember I'm not asking to be made part of the committee by arbcom. I can clearly see where there might be jurisdictional issues there. Again in terms of redress I'm asking for a judgement vacating the original rejection. That is arbcom would merely rule that they consider the process by which I was reject illicit. They wouldn't be asked to change composition of medcom in any way. Now I guess you could assert that arbcom doesn't even have want amounts to editorial powers, that is right to make a comment but I find that a stretch. Moreover even if this were true it still wouldn't matter. What key in this case is the finding of fact that IRC did in fact interfere with an on wiki process involving a 3rd party not present on IRC. That is IRC having an on wiki effect. At least in my reading of many of the IRC cases and disputes, the assertion is that sort of thing can't happen. People aren't punished for things they do off wiki. And that's something you missed in your summary. The complaint was made off wiki and the events were off wiki. As far as the IRC issue, arbcom could easily have a finding of fact that this is precisely what happened in this case even if they asserted they lack jurisdiction to correct the problem in any way. It was the IRC issue that started this whole thing. The medcom process are non appealable and not subject to review or oversight is apparently the defense that IRC abuse didn't occur. In other words abuse is impossible because Jimbo's intent in establishing this committee is that the nomination process would exist without any constraints of behavior. I think medcom would need to prove that in the case. Its a very strong statement. jbolden1517 Talk 23:08, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
The Mediation Committee has our " two oppose rule". It simply states that any two Mediators opposing any nomination will cause the nomination to fail. It does not have to be for on-wiki reasons, it does not have to be for what you perceive as legitimate reasons, it just has to happen. For all intents and purposes, Ral315 could've said "Oppose because he likes the color blue and I don't." While it wouldn't necessarily be fair, it would still be within our policies. As two oppositions were the cause of your nomination's failure, it is essentially a moot point. Off-wiki discussions (via IRC and our mailing list) are very valuable to our decision making process on accepting/declining new nominations to the Committee. As Anthony is aware, we discussed his first nomination off-wiki on the mailing list. You don't see him looking to get it overturned, do you? He simply waited and then reapplied. Finally, other than in our conduct as individual editors, the Arbitration Committee holds no jurisdiction over our functionality as an official Wikipedia Committee, just as they have no say in what goes into the Signpost, what features articles go on the homepage, or (while it existed) who the leaders of Esperanza were. We were co-founded by Jimbo for different purposes, and we do not hold a checks-and-balances system over each other. We are designed to function individually and by our own means and processes, which we have done for almost three and a half years without incident. Further attempts to make a point about off-wiki communications by disrupting this Committee will not be tolerated and I respectfully ask you to stop. Simply put, your original request to have us revisit your nomination has been denied, the Mediation Committee will not allow our processes to go before Arbitration, and it should be left at that.
I don't know if you want to use them, but I've just created some templates for you guys to properly close nominations for mediators.
If you want to use them then go ahead, if not, it's no big deal. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't know if it's something wrong with the bot, but it left two identical messages of a mediation being closed on my talk page. Just wanted to let you know. Parsecboy 12:26, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
I was moved to the Mediators Emeriti page about a year ago, and since then I have been enjoying my retirement. According to the various edit counters, though, this month has been my most active month of editing ever and I feel like my Wiki-time isn't being used as efficiently as it could be. As such, I have listed myself as an active mediator and I am ready to fill any role needed. Andre ( talk) 02:45, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
What character traits do you look for in prospective Committee members? Dagomar 19:14, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Recently, MediationBot1 has been sending mediation notifications to User:Example [1], which is not a real account (it exists, but it's not an active user). This is probably due to Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Sample listing that account by default, which means that in malformed cases like Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Evan_Dobelle (the case that triggered the posts in question), it may remain listed or even be the only user listed. Could whomever is currently maintaining the bot please see to it that it doesn't send needless messages to this account? — Gavia immer (talk) 19:34, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Whoever is running this bot, it is spamming my talk page. Please stop. Crum375 20:21, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Hello. I'm wondering whether it is normal for MediationBot to provide three notifications of a rejected case over the course of half a day. That seems excessive to me, and I wonder whether the bot is malfunctioning or whether I need to do something to stop the notifications. Thanks. -- Tkynerd 17:50, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
I spotted this debate where some editors suggest the MedCom is in need of reform. This may be worth discussing, and this talk page appears to be the most appropriate spot. >Radiant< 12:30, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
I think it would be helpful if those who have concerns about what we do and how raise them here so a discussion can be held. We are very willing to respond to questions and enter into discussion. Some of the comments in the MfD are rather of the sort of "this sounds odd and isn't how other processes are run". This is true, but I think people need to gain a good understanding of what we are doing in order to determine if change is needed and, if so, to make positive suggestions for such change. If reform is needed, a case needs to be made for it and it is better for decisions to be fully discussed here than for the Committee to try and guess what changes the Community would like. So by all means, raise concerns on this talkpage - we will explain why we do things the way we do and perhaps with everyone talking things over better arrangements can be come to. We are particularly interested to here if there are examples of circumstances when either (a) the wrong people have been appointed (or not appointed) to the Committee or (b) of areas where the stucture of MedCom has meant that a dispute has been dealt with in a sub-optimal manner. WjB scribe 16:27, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
The few issues I saw in the MFD seemed to be related to the bureaucracy. This was, for the most part, inherent since the beginning of MedCom, partially because a mediator needs a high level of trust - a mediator needs to be able to hold the confidence of all parties involved, no matter what the consequences of doing so may be. The Chair position isn't really bureaucratic at all - we elect a member from within ourselves to handle the dirty work, assign cases, etc. I'm open to change, but there wasn't any discussion at the MFD about what to change. I hope some discussion will occur here. Ral315 » 22:27, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Just a thought. It seems like the "chair" covers most of the stuff, but I think it would take a lot of the work load off one person. CO 2 22:09, 2 October 2007 (UTC)