Wikipedia:Perl Mediation/GroundRules

Mediation with a stick

My last attempt at mediation failed, primarily because people were not willing to participate in mediation nor to honor the outcomes of mediation. I am not here as an editor and I am not going to join in the battle, I’m here to resolve the battle and help you all to create a great Perl article. That is an article that describes Perl in a way that is accurate, informative and neutral in its point of view. Because of previous non cooperation this requires a partial escalation. This article is now under a mediation process and the ground rules under which it is administrated will change.

I will establish mediation discussions on subsection of the article. Only people participating in the mediation process can have input on those areas of the article. They can still however edit other areas of the article. That is it is not mandatory that you participate but if you don't participate you waive your rights to have input on sections put under mediation. As mediation progress this may become a larger and larger percentage of the article.
Any subsection of the article under mediation cannot be edited directly, unless I otherwise indicate. I will perform the edits. My edits to the main article are never reverted. Reverting or undoing an edit of mine will result in either a warning or a block. Repeated violations will result in a ban from editing the Perl article for the duration of the mediation process.
Durin (talk · contribs) will be my administrative supervisor, if at any point you consider my actions either grossly unfair or immoral you may appeal to him. You may not under any circumstances take direct action to reverse my actions.
Mediation participants cannot complain about one another's behavior. I will take care of all disciplinary problems. They are free to disagree about content written by another editor in a respectful manner.
In the beginnign editors will talk to me, I'll be mediating the conversation as well as the content. As time progresses I will move further and further away from controlling the debate.

jbolden1517 ^Talk 13:00, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Participants

Please indicate next to your name whether you would like to be involved or not. If you are not on the list and would like to be please add yourself.

Harmil
Imroy
Steve p - yes
Scarpia - we pretty much had concensus before, but the mediator didn't like it. I'd like to respectfully request another mediator.
Pudge - no
RevRagnarok - Will try to be involved but agree with others that this seems to be tail chasing.
-Barry- - Would like to be involved
User:Swmcd - I want to be involved.
User:Ideogram - I will follow the debate but don't have any technical expertise to contribute.
Eric R. Meyers – I'm here to help solve the problem.

Mediation is over. The mediator has left Wikipedia, as has, for the most part, the main person the mediation was respecting. -- Pudge 21:29, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Objections/clarifications

Here is a place to discuss objections and request clarifications to the ground rules above. jbolden1517 ^Talk 12:58, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Objections to the whole process or me personally should be taken to Talk:Perl Mediation/New Mediator

reply to Scarpia

Scarpia - we pretty much had concensus before, but the mediator didn't like it. I'd like to respectfully request another mediator. Reasonable request, here is the proper procedure.

I can be replaced by any member of the mediation committee (which is the policy for escalation of mediation). Basically you file an application and if they accept the case I'm out.
Alternately you can ask Durin to dismiss me for for cause (I'm assuming either incompetence or bias is the charge), in which case it remains with the cabal but not with me.

However, while you are unlikely to believe me, given Durin's previous intervention, my comments and Simetrical comments on the RFC its unlikely this objection regarding consensus is going to be accepted. You have had 3 experienced and independent people with no history of intervention on Perl indicate they were unhappy with the consensus you all had established. "Upper management" is not going to want to reestablish this consensus. However, success will be almost impossible unless you do this as a team. Moreover it can take a month or more for a mediation committee member to be assigned even if the case is accepted which is going to take a long time without clarity. If you would like I can set up a page for you to discuss with the rest of the pro Perl group whether they want to move for a replacement and if so which of the two methods they would like to use. Let me know. jbolden1517 ^Talk 17:16, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Barry

In addition, I believe he [Pudgenet] should have been banned for other things. Therefore, I support the deletion of his posts to this page and I suggest he find another outlet for his complaints. -Barry- 20:21, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barry. I've added another rule to address this issue. jbolden1517 ^Talk 20:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Durin

Durin's role must be clarified here. Not even he understands what it is. Perhaps you should comment that part out until you two can come to agreement, and then make it clear to everyone else?

My role in terms of what Jbolden1517 is expecting of me has been clarified to my satisfaction. My role in terms of what I wish or will do here will not be restricted; I'll take what actions I deem appropriate. --Durin 21:26, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Page Locking

You should point to the Wikipedia document that gives you the authority to effectively force mediation by locking the page, and explain how this does not conflict with the principle that mediation is voluntary.

scapia in answer to your question:

Wikipedia:Protection_policy#A_temporary_protection_is_used_for:

Enforcing a "cool down" period to stop an "edit war," upon request.

In answer to your other questions. Yes this kind of active intervention in an environment of extreme hostility and personal attacks does involve censorship.

[[1]]

jbolden1517 ^Talk 03:33, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New mediation page?

Will further mediation take place here or on a new page? If on a new page, then maybe that old mediation page should be locked along with the original mediation page. Steve posted to Talk:Perl_Mediation just now and I don't know whether he's in violation of your new rules or whether I can respond. -Barry- 17:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neither. I'll be creating topic pages. That's why I've started what amounts to a mediation directory structure. The old page will be "archive 1" very shortly. But this is the first topic to mediate, ground rules, policy and who is involved. As for that discussion everyone seems to be acting civilly and in good faith. Big problem is Steve hasn't joined in yet. jbolden1517 ^Talk 00:31, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]