Wikipedia talk:Guerrilla Mediation Network
Possible resurrection?
[edit]I think this system works better than medcab in many instances... although I think a possibility is to not template the talk page. It'd be kinda cabal-ish, but I think informal mediators would have better luck if no-one knew they were being informally mediated ;-)
So, I ask myself, what are the cons to not having the talk page templated w/ a notice of informal mediation? Ah, yes, because of the ad-hoc nature of this form of dispute resolution, it would be hard to tell if someone were using their informal mediation "powers" for ill (because there'd be no history of them being there)! I say assume good faith on their part, and allow a system of quickly denying whether a case can be solved via this path. I'm rambling, but, hey, this is historical.
Just wondering if anyone has this on their watch page and wants to comment. Xavexgoem (talk) 22:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Also think that "guerrilla" should remain: it invokes a certain type of editor to consider this route, I think. I'm in total cabal mode, now. Xavexgoem (talk) 22:26, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- I think that this is something that should be resuscitated :) Seddon69 (talk) 16:14, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
How is this different from the WP:AMA, which project was crushed like a bug? It has different members but I have been doing 'stealth dispute resolution' for half a decade (?) without a wikiproject, seems to me if you want to do something you get more done by doing it than by invoking a beaureaucratisation of it, and consequent negative attention. Guerrillas arise when needed, disappear once the job is done. User:Pedant (talk) 22:11, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
- The system specification is incredibly flexible and primarily ad-hoc in organization. It's actually not much different at all from medcab in its beginning. The benefit now is since medcab was created, WP has a good deal of untapped mediation potential. Medcab is now the training ground, and it has trained mediators a-plenty.
- So this is just informal mediation with experienced editors and mediators; medcab can be iffy at times, precisely because it's where you learn. Both medcab and medcom distance the dispute from the dispute by placing the conversation away from the article, where the actual editing takes place. So I think this method - where a template added to a talk page adds the article to a category listing - keeps the dispute contained on the talk page and the article. So "arise when needed, disappear once the job is done" is rather apt.
- Also: very little has been changed on the project space from when Turnbull created this process, so there are still some kinks to be worked out (or clarified, at any rate). I'm interested in how this could be bureaucratic as it stands, as bureaucracy is precisely what will make this fail the worst. Xavexgoem (talk) 15:21, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
- How is it the same as AMA? AMA was this huge bureaucratic setup waiting for people to bring problems to them. (actually worse than medcom or arbcom). GMN is mediators with some level of experience going out and doing stuff, and asking help from their friends. And a handy dandy tag to call attention to spots that need help. Period. Basically a stripped down old-skool medcab and pretty much The New Competition for those fine folks ;-) . (people always work better when there's a bit of competition in the air O:-) )
- Well, that's as far as I get the idea anyway, ask Xavexgoem for details. :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 22:51, 26 June 2008 (UTC) Also, I teamed up with NicholasT (the first designer of this method) during the AMA closing, and I'm pretty sure I know what he thinks of bureaucracies ;-)
If the above category is part of this process, and it appears to be, and you want it to not be subject to C1 speedy deletion, then it really should be in the project space, rather than in the normal article space, as it currently is. It's already bee deleted/restored twice, and will likely be again if it remains in the main namespace. - TexasAndroid (talk) 18:39, 23 September 2008 (UTC)