Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/2006 Archive

Main

Self-criticism of the Mediation Cabal

moved to Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Complaints#Self-criticism_of_the_Mediation_Cabal

Promoting Discussion

I would suggest that articles for which a request for mediation has been made should carry a note, e.g. {{ActiveDiscuss}}, to make sure that interested parties can find the mediation process. I propose this because, from the cases I reviewed to get a better understanding for the process of the mediation cabal, in three current cases it seemed dubious if that was the case and in one case people where actually complaining about not have been made aware of it. Alternatively the {{ActiveDiscuss}} tag could be made a requirement for being accepted for mediation at all. The actual mediation could then have its own notice to let people know that, even for a discussion that has run into a deadend, it might be worthwhile to check the talk page again. --Fasten 18:33, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Here is the {{ActiveDiscuss}} template: {{ActiveDiscuss}} Personally, I like the suggestion given by Fasten, but I do not like the template for that purpose. Another template may be more appropriate, or replace the Status: New request field that was in {{Medcab2}} at one time. (Further instructions to the cabalists may be needed to keep that field up to date). Also, for a Mediation Cabal to remain a cabal, I would hope that its procedures will continue to remain very informal. A note to this affect could be placed on the main page to advise cabal users of this fact. I see the cabal as informal mediation. My two cent. SteveMc 04:53, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

That's a good point. In that case maybe we can add it as a recommendation to submitters of mediation requests that the {{ActiveDiscuss}} template or a similar template should be on the page to inform people that there is a current discussion. --Fasten 09:59, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Proposed modification to medcab2

I would like to propose a modification to the {{Medcab2}} template. The change would be in the Request Information section, following Request made by:, add the following:

'''Status:''' (--to be modified by mediator--) '''new request, mediation pending'''
  <!--to mediators, possible choices: 
      under consideration with ~~~~
      awaiting answer to mediator's questions ~~~~
      solution proposed, awaiting response ~~~~
      final recommendation made, close case~~~~
      any others?
  -->

Sincerely, SteveMc 19:38, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I like them very much and I appreciate all your efforts. But I wonder myself is there the need to be so formalised? I mean we should not formalise and let this free to the mediator. In rest I think is a good alternative. Bonaparte talk 19:42, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

What if we

1. Placed '''Status:''' (--to be modified by mediator--) '''new request, mediation pending''' back into {{Medcab2}}. Then
2. Created some "Suggestions for mediators" at the top of this talk page? We would not have to place the exact responses there, just some general instruction to keep the main page and the mediation page up to date. It could look something like this:

Suggestions for mediators

Cabalists, the Mediation Cabal is a nice and laid-back, informal mediation forum for resolving Wikipedia disputes. Even so, here are a few suggestions that will help us maintain the integrity and maintainability of this process. Mediation generally proceeds in the following steps. Please add comments on each mediation page to indicate the status of the mediation. request is made → mediator accepts case → facts are stated from both side (this step and the previous could be reversed) → mediator requests more facts (if needed) $\leftrightarrow$ responses and answers to mediator (if needed) → mediator recommends a solution $\leftrightarrow$ users respond to recommendation → mediator make final recommendation → case is closed. Do not impose sanctions, but do kindly ask users to follow Wikipedia policies. Remind users to assume good faith, refrain from name calling, and stick to the issues. Be nice to people, help them cool down, then advise on how best to bring the problem to an end. Others?

What say you? SteveMc 20:43, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I would like to add the recommendation I gave in Promoting Discussion: {{ActiveDiscuss}} or a similar notice seems a useful hint for editors in some cases. Concerning the number of official states of a mediation I would recommend to keep the number low. What's important is to let other potential mediators know a case is being worked on. This should be visible on WP:MEDCAB and could be in mediation (as mediator responded is ambiguous) and mediator response given to know others the case is closed. I see no need to have more official states or put them in the template. I like the suggestion box, as it can give some useful hints, but we should put it on the WP:MEDCAB page. Here is the version I would suggest:

Suggestions for mediators

Cabalists, the Mediation Cabal is a nice and laid-back, informal mediation forum for resolving Wikipedia disputes. Even so, here are a few suggestions that will help us maintain the integrity and maintainability of this process. Mediation generally proceeds in the following steps. Please add comments next to the case to indicate the status of the mediation. in mediation when a mediator accepts a case. mediator response given when the case is closed and the mediator's response can be found on the page of the case. case closed when the case is closed and the mediator's final response can be found on the page of the case. Putting up an {{ActiveDiscussMC}} notice on the disputed page(s) can be helpful to alert everybody do the need to check the talk page, if the mediation is taking place there. Try to be impartial and not to bring up your own opinion, unless that seems to be inevitable. Do not impose sanctions, but do kindly ask users to follow Wikipedia policies. To stop edit wars you might want to recommend a page for protection. Remind users to assume good faith, refrain from name calling and to observe Wikiquette. Be nice to people, help them cool down, then help them agree on a few steps to help bring the problem to an end You might want to give people some hints on why they needed mediation and how to avoid that in future, if the situation allows it. The Categorical Imperative may be a good starting point. Please note the official mediation process. There is no need to follow that process in detail here but it may give you some more ideas about mediation, especially why you might prefer private dispute resolution to public dispute resolution. The cabal is only a first, inofficial attempt at dispute resolution.

I added some more points. --Fasten 14:30, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

There is now a variant of the {{ActiveDiscuss}} template: {{ActiveDiscussMC}} for public dispute resolution. --Fasten 14:51, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

{{ActiveDiscussMC}}

I propose to split Mediator response in {{Medcab2}} into Mediator comments and Mediator proposal / resolution --Fasten 15:07, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Hello all: Good ideas here.

• Status choices: The idea of the addition of a series of status choices is an interesting one, and indeed may save time if implemented. The main problem with it I can see is that the Mediation Cabal is designed predominantly to not have a fixed procedure; mediator discretion, and the particulars of the case, are what define how the mediation proceeds, not a series of standard steps. Thus I think it would probably be best if we left it entirely up to the individual mediator how to assign the status. Indeed, there is otherwise the issue that it gives an impression a status even has to even be assigned, which is only something we've arrived at by default.
• Suggestions for mediators: Very very good idea. Some time ago I had an idea about writing an internal mediation manual for the medcab; my humorous title was Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Manual of Guerrilla Mediation :) I propose that rather being in a box on this page, it would be best off put in a subpage and linked to from the status board perhaps. (That way it could also be linked to elsewhere on Wikipedia, and indeed if we put sufficient effort into it perhaps it may prove useful to other people on Wikipedia.)
• ActiveDiscuss: yes, important, because so far usually the only hint that the medcab is involved in an article is that a mediator has posted on the talk page. We could even have a Category:Articles undergoing informal mediation, perhaps, which could even do away with our case list :)
• Mediator response: As per the status choices, I would advocate leaving that up to the mediator rather than specifying it by default. If possible we should try to cut down on "paperwork" as much as possible, and for trivial cases I see no reason why mediators should have to fill out both comments and recommendations.

All the best, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 18:02, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

By the way - since we're about as ad-hoc as could possibly be, and we're a cabal, nobody should feel afraid of implementing changes they think are necessary. You can just be bold and make them! --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 18:09, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I've made a page for the Suggestions for mediators but I didn't link it from anywhere outside this talk page yet. Let's wait for more input on the matter. The status choices are, of course, only recommendations but there needs to be a status in the case list or several mediators might try to pick the same case, which is unnecessarily chaotic. The idea of using a category for the case list is probably not so good, because the case list provides more information and has a chronological order, which would both be lost by using a category instead. --Fasten 19:21, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I find that the phrase Mediator response given does not communicate that a case is closed. When the case is closed, say case closed. I am in mediation on the Jehovah's Witness page right now, and I have given five responses, and I can foresee at least two more, maybe more; in that case Mediator response given would not mean the case is closed. I am not advocating that we all use my messages, but the process of mediation can often be a back-and-forth proposition, so when the case is closed, say case closed. Thanks, SteveMc 04:40, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I've modified the nice box a bit more. You shouldn't give advice since you're not an ivory tower. ;-) Instead, get the two people to agree to "walk the path to reconciliation together", at least a few steps. Get some minor agreements, and set them going. A case is probably never really entirely closed this way, and people can come back if they're stuck, but that's the way it is :-) Kim Bruning 00:13, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Making a request for assistance

I just requested mediation and noticed that Step 1's "Click here" link opens up the edit box for Ye Olde Cabalists not the appropriate section: Send for the Cabal! Requests for cabal mediation. I'm not sure if this is a known issue or not, thought you guys would like to know. I'd change it myself but dunno how. Duffer 17:42, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, I fixed the problem. It was an off by one bug (the section number is 9, not 8) and reference by name doesn't seem to work. --Fasten 18:21, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Whoops! *looks embarassed* Sorry, I did that by adding the "If you cannot edit Wikipedia" section without thinking. Especially silly of me since I was the one who initially wrote the request stuff! Thanks for fixing, Fasten; sorry for my stupidity, Duffer. :) Best regards, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 04:22, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Need input from other cabalists

Greetings, The mediation on Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/29_12_2005_Interstate_76_(east) is at a halt because its initiator, User:Beirne has withdrawn from Wikipedia (see User talk:Beirne#Good_bye). I am inclined to close the case. Any disagreement? SteveMc 22:44, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, if there are only two disputing parties and Beirne is one of them. This is just my opinion of course. Izehar 22:47, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

There were a couple of other users who responded on the cabal page. I will check with them as well. Thanks, SteveMc 23:04, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Basically if there is still a dispute and willing people to enter mediation then you should continue; if neither exists, then close it. Best regards, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 18:53, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Changing date format

I think it'd be wise to change date format from the current "dd mm yyyy" to "yyyy-mm-dd". The former is sort of made up, the latter is ISO 8601 standard. Not a competition there, if you ask me. Also the latter format has the advantage that when it is sorted lexigraphically it is sorted chronologically. When the former is sorted, it just sorts by day. Not very useful. I'm posting here to get a consensus on this and if consensus is reached I'll change the "report a new case" section and the templates appropriately. Thanks! --Cyde Weys _vote^talk 17:41, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, I was the one who implemented the date format; it is actually a US/UK difference, I believe, because in the UK we usually refer to dates as dd-mm-yyyy, not yyyy-mm-dd or mm-dd-yyyy (and, to me, seeing 01-04-2005 would mean 1st April 2005, but to most Americans it would mean 4th January 2005). I can't see us sorting the list, since if people follow the instructions and stick the template at the bottom of the page, it is already sorted in order. I can't really see the need to change it, myself; however, if you have a burning desire to do so, then by all means, change it. I am of the opinion that we should spend more time worrying about the actual cases and our mediation methods as opposed to being too concerned about the interface, when we aren't actually having any problems with it. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 17:06, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

It's not just a US/UK thing. The point of standards is so that everyone can understand a common format. ISO 8601 is universally recognized as this format. And the list is sorted when using Special:Allpages/Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal, for instance. See how the cases are being sorted by day of the month (which doesn't make sense) rather than year, then month, then day, which would make it chronological order? I'll make the changes. It's not too hard. --Cyde Weys _vote^talk 19:39, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Bonaparte

I think that due to his proven sockpuppet farming activity we should hereby remove him from the Mediation Cabal; this sort of behaviour is unbecoming of mediators, and although he's indef blocked now I suggest we relieve him of his Cabal duties in case he should be unbanned. I actually never looked into his mediations before (and, indeed, I unwisely gave him an "award" for being a mediator, which I am somewhat embarassed about having done looking at the mediations he worked on - I merely did it in an effort of encouragement since he appeared to be flagging behind a bit). All of his cases need reassigning, and indeed someone would do well to review his past mediations, tidying up any damage (a few I looked at were pretty poor). Best regards, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 01:32, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Quality check - List of cases Bonaparte has been involved in

Since, looking more closely, there seems to have been deficiency in the cases this user handled, I think it would be best if we checked over the cases Bonaparte was involved in and took appropriate action where required. Below is a list of the "new version" cases he was mediator of, please sign off each case after you've checked over each, perhaps commenting on what state the cases were in.

Active cases

• 2005-12-27 Second Law of Thermodynamics Status set was "in mediation".
• 2005-12-29 Alpha Phi Alpha Status set was "in mediation, clarifications requested".

Closed cases

• 27 12 2005 Mark K. Bilbo Closed with status "case closed".
• 12 December 2005 List of Freemasons Closed with status "case closed - after accepting the introduction of the disputed paragraph".

Actually, this does highlight a problem that we haven't really thought of regarding the medcab, and that is one of quality control; we would do well to have some sort of quality checking process in place so that another cabalist checks each case at some point to make sure the mediator is half-sane. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 09:41, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Did you have any ideas regarding what form this process would take? - FrancisTyers 23:08, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Originally we often tried to have at least 2 medcab members on any case. The mutual support makes the case seem a lot lighter, especially with a good humored wingmediator . In some cases it also allows decent quality control. This was especially apparent in situations where for instance bishonen and sam spade were (supposed to be) cooperating ;-) Kim Bruning 00:07, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I am doing the Alpha Phi Alpha case, and have asked the participants whether further mediation is required. Olorin28 03:24, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

The Jefferson issue is still going, and as contentious as ever.--SarekOfVulcan 04:14, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Advice of mediation cabal not followed

Greetings, What should be done when the advice of the mediator is not followed? I brought up the issue earlier on this page {here, now one of the users of that page is asking about abiding by the recommendations of the mediator (me) here.

I think I can answer my own question, but I want to see what other think. Here is what I think: Seems to me that since we are an informal mediation, and that we can be pulled into mediation by one side of the dispute, that our advice cannot be enforced. The most we can do is recommend that the users to use Wikipedia enforcement policies. It is not the responsibility of the mediator to do this.

Thanks, looking forward to your advice. SteveMc 04:29, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

This is a difficult question, because until comparatively recently we didn't actually have any cases which would necessitate enforcement to quite this degree. I would say the Mediation Cabal as a whole cannot enforce decisions, since we aren't arbitrators and don't order people to do anything; however, I suppose to a certain degree the level of involvement is up to the individual mediator. Probably I'd rather not make a firm decision on this, since this is to a certain extent a matter of mediator discretion; however, generally speaking, one can only advise mediation participants since otherwise our role would shift from mediation to arbitration. "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink." I think that otherwise if we did start imposing enforcement we would jeopardise firstly our informal nature, and secondly our committment to neutrality. All the best, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 09:46, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

People need to agree with each other on what to do. Your advice is unimportant in the end, it's the agreement between the two people that counts. That's the difference between arbitration and mediation. An arbitrator tells people "You Must Behave, I Have Spoken!" (you can actually hear the caps!). A mediator says "ok, so petey, you agree not to stuff beans up little angies nose again, and little angie? you've agreed with petey not to hit him over the head with that naughty stick again, right? are we agreed? good, now shake hands on it. goooood. you can go play now." (Note the lack of caps ;-) ) Kim Bruning 00:01, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

"Active discuss" template

Hi -- just saw this "active discuss" template meant to be put on article pages. This is a bad idea; such templates IMO should only go on talk pages -- especially since what we're doing here is explicitly unofficial. Otherwise, get ready for people to make all sorts of templates to stick on articles! Sdedeo (tips) 01:33, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

(I propose amending the template so that it can be placed on discussion pages instead of articles. If people don't object, I'll go ahead and make the change after waiting 24 hours or so. Sdedeo (tips) 03:02, 15 January 2006 (UTC))

OK -- I'm going ahead and making the change to the template. Please discuss &c. if you think I'm wrong to do so! Sdedeo (tips) 21:19, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Templates can be unofficial too. Kim Bruning 23:54, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Anyone interested in David and Goliath ?

Would it be possible to help David? The help was supposedly to level the field to two combatants wasn't it ? Does David need help ? The preceding rule forbad help. Have I slung my shot already, just the Giant is so tall he hasn't hit the ground yet? Is David relevant as metaphor to a trial? EffK 12:25, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Is the giraffe in a position to chastise the duck? - FrancisTyers 23:03, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

We're bordering on jokes. At least, this is the first laugh I had here. Your response is worthy of CP Snow and Koestler. A very good point. Ugly, duck-ling? I guess we watch and see what the Giraffe does, or which one does it. The duck makes too much noise for it's size, is one way to thik of it.

Is there a rule aginst talking in metaphor ? The post I made here was lodged straightway as evidence against me . Does the cabal here have anything to do with other cabals or interest in them? Is cabal a tolerated word, and if it is not tolerated in me, why is it tolerated here? Can a cabal exist by virtue of virtual fellowship? Can a User represent a cabal outside WP? IE can a one man cabal exist representing a supposed cabal out-there ? Can this here cabal help another cabal ? Can this cabal help a cabal that is a cabal of one ? Is a continuity of historians the same as a cabal of source? Why do I have to be a cabal of source and why do I alone have to fight a cabal against this cabal of historical continuity? I know the metaphor to be accurate,especially apt to the software, though it's not entirely clear if it cannot be taken two ways. Perhaps the Giraffes would be the historians, and the ducks would be the majority of bottom feeders. Perhaps Goliath is the Curia? The giraffe perhaps can chase away the duck out of wikipedia, but outside wikipedia maybe the reverse happens, the historians can chase away the ducks. Surely source chases POV here? Does exclusion of multiple verifiability through primary source require mediation, or just wiki-censure? EffK 12:14, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Wait, you weren't laughing before? I wonder. I thought having a wierd cabal would be funny enough. Perhaps I should set up a mediation circus. Kim Bruning 23:53, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Down here in the trenches the Officer class shoot laughter, and there's little time for it, what with staunching our wounds and holding the line. Its a document war- what we need we can't actually get our hands on. Its perhaps a sector on the over-all front, though. So, how do you mediate with contumate hypocrisy? Here there's only lice and rats and poppies, and the giraffe was shot for peeking. EffK 11:14, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Dealing with anonymous users?

We've recently seen a rash of MedCab cases involving registered users versus anonymous users. I'm thinking we should modify the MedCab instructions to prohibit people from filing MedCabs on anonymous users. It's simply too hard to do, especially with users who have dynamically-assigned IPs. I want to generate some discussion on this before I implement it, though, because I'm not sure if I've thought it all the way through yet. --Cyde Weys 22:50, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if we should prohibit people from filing requests on this, it might be worth discussing how best to deal with these particular kind of requests though. For example on Charlie Wolf, a request was filed regarding a dispute with an anonymous user, I went to mediate but it seems that the dispute has died down as the anon has left (at least for now). At least some of the disputes regarding anons have been just pure vandalism. But I'd hate to leave two people without mediation just because one refuses to make an account ;) - FrancisTyers 23:03, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

This is the mediation CABAL. There are no rules. :-) If you want a million little rules driving you crazy, go join the mediation committee. ;-)

Well enough. I do agree that dealing with anon ips is tricky, but it can certainly be done. It's often worth it too, if they're of good will. Especially if you can teach them a bit about wikirules and convince them to hang around and help build the encyclopedia. Kim Bruning 23:51, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

kvetch, complain

After mediating a solution, it is rather annoying not to see it implemented! i.e., the final state of the article after everyone's gone home is the same as it was at the start. I suppose some people just like to argue for the sake of arguing, and once the conflict is removed, interest declines to zero. Sdedeo (tips) 23:40, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

So, are you a cabalist or what? ;-) Be BOLD. Make the change they agreed on for them. Then dig a ditch and take cover! Kim Bruning 00:15, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Hey, is that Kim Bruning? I voted for you! Go and help out on the cases, there's a sudden influx of them! Sdedeo (tips) 02:08, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Oops, I did mention the medcab during the arbcom elections, didn't I? (ut oh) Kim Bruning 22:50, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Wild mediation

I wonder if people are still doing it? When there's a situation, just join the conversation on the talk page and be your sane, conciliatory self. Try and get things done and gain concensus in a friendly manner (but since you don't have any interests either way, there's no hurry or need to push it. Just relax and sort of show you're relaxed). Typically that's enough to kill a lot of problems right there, with no further work needed. Try for concrete solutions, where actual edits are made to the page that don't get reverted.

Kim Bruning 00:21, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Wildcat mediation? Sure, I thought I invented the term! Glad to know other people are doing it :) - FrancisTyers 01:21, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it's all common sense, mostly :-) Kim Bruning 01:33, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

"I declare this case closed!"

You wish! The case is closed when the participants have agreed not to fight, or better yet, when they've agreed to stick their energies into something productive.

The case closes when they're shaking hands, or if you've managed to go "Look! Shiny!" and they're actually off editing the shiny and forget all about you ;-)

Finally, don't expect a single case of shaking hands to do it. In fact, count and build on it. Get people to agree on something small first. They can always come back if things are still too strained. If they do come back, just get them agree on another small thing. Many pennies make a dollar. :-) Kim Bruning 00:36, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Assisting with mediations

So I thought I'd just dive into some mediations today. But on my first sample, in half of the mediations I was "locked out". The mediator was doing all kinds of formal stuff that I dare not touch. The other half were already finished for some definition of, I guess. (But no one marked them so I could easily figure which was which)

Also somewhere along the way, case descriptions have grown a little past 2 lines. :-P

Soooo, it's usually a good idea for mediators to cooperate on cases. Many hands make light work! :) If you'd like me (and by extention other folks) to help out with your mediation, be sure to keep it informal and lightweight, and possibly at the article talk page or what-have-you, so that random bystanders can just pop in and help out, without it being at all awkward. :-)

(In fact, make sure to (ab)use the bystander effect as much as possible! Recruit people into helping you. That way they pick up the tricks and will be able to look after themselves after a while :-) )

Kim Bruning 13:09, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

ps. If you have a case you're working on and are kind of stuck, and you've kept it open like suggested above, drop me a note on my talk page, I'll come over and take a look! :-) (Alternately, leave a note for other declared cabal members above, or here on this talk page, or ask friends, or come on irc) Kim Bruning 13:11, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

My resignation as coordinator; new coordinator needed

See also: My return as coordinator

Dear Cabalists,

Just now I had an IRC conversation at length with the original founder of the Mediation Cabal, Kim Bruning, and have come to realise that I have in fact moved this initiative in a somewhat undesirable direction. Kim raised very valid concerns over the fact that I have made this initiative too formal - in effect, creating a committee out of what was designed to be an open process. In addition, it appears that I misjudged the actual purpose of the Mediation Cabal; Kim has mentioned to me that his view was that the "real" Mediation Cabal doesn't have anything to do with this page at all, and this Wikipedia namespace page was intended to focus efforts.

It appears I've driven away the "old time" mediators because of this formalisation, and indeed Kelly Martin expressed to me that she felt the Medcab had become too formal and thus did not wish to rejoin it after her arbitration term ended; I think she is quite right, and steps need to be taken to refocus this initiative towards something more congruent with its aims. As a consequence I feel I have not really performed satisfactorily in my role as Coordinator, and think that it is time that someone else took my place here who would retune this initiative towards a more productive viewpoint. If anyone is interested in taking this role over, please do so, although perhaps Kim Bruning may be able to select someone who would be ideally suited. I will however remain here as a mediator, of course, and will continue with the cases I've already assigned.

I would like to thank all of the excellent mediators who have been doing brilliant work recently down here, and also to thank Kim for pointing this out to me.

Best regards, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 23:56, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I haven't found things to be "too formal"; I didn't notice any kind of "formality" going on, just have been jumping in on talk pages once something is posted. It's nice to have some small level of formality, because it seems to make people take the process more seriously. Anyway, things seem fine to me. Sdedeo (tips) 00:13, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure how it could get much less formal or much more formal and still be a useful tool. I think NicholasT has been doing a great job of keeping the formality to a minimum (see above on this talk page). Perhaps anyone who is interested in changing the way we doing things should just do it. As NicholasT pointed out:

By the way - since we're about as ad-hoc as could possibly be, and we're a cabal, nobody should feel afraid of implementing changes they think are necessary. You can just be bold and make them!

Apologies if I've come accross sycophantic, that was not my intention, I just think this change has been sudden and pointless. - FrancisTyers 00:25, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I respect Nicholas Turnbulls descision. I'm saddened though. I'll see if I can find another experienced wikipedian to help out. This kind of person has recently become a very rare animal however, so that might take some time. Kim Bruning 00:48, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

By the way I didn't tell Nicholas Turnbull he was doing a bad job, and in fact I think he was doing great! I don't know, *sigh* Kim Bruning 03:50, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Wgfinley new coordinator!

<Evil Cabal Grin> I managed to snatch Wgfinley from the jaws of the Association of members advocates. He's the original co-founder of the mediation cabal, and quite ambitious it seems. Typically the cabal runs itself, I've been told, but it's always nice to have an experienced user around to keep an eye on things. :-)

The King is Dead, Long Live the King!

Okay, maybe a Yank isn't allowed to say that but I have so live with it!

Kim contacted me with an urgent plea about MedCab and after mulling for sometime and succumbing to a type of persuasion that only Kim can provide (no, no favors were provided, get your mind out of the gutter) I decided to take over as MedCab Coordinator, or Grand Poobah if you will. So, here I am.

First Things First

In all seriousness (which shouldn't happen around here very often) Nicholas will be sorely missed, he did a lot of great work and I am sad to see him go. I have posted a plea for him to come back on his talk page, I hope he will some day soon. I'll even let him share the Grand Poobah Chair (there, made it funny, now happy).

Second Things Second

As my first act, I have archived this talk page. Sheesh you guys have been rambling on. This is an example of being bold and I like it. The way to the heart of any Grand Poobah is to embrace the trifecta of which BE BOLD is one. We need some boldness here. That's what I hope to interject. Why do we even have a page as silly as "Mediation Cabal" with WP:TINMC as the shortcut? Why? I'll tell you, let me think of the reason first though....

Oh wait, I remember. See, when Kim and I founded this thing we wanted to have something simple to help work out disputes before they get blown up into nuclear war (see also arbitration). One of the things that we believe leads to nuclear war is getting all caught up in one's own argument and then the policies and procedures of making that argument. And then the policies and procedures for making the policies and procedures for making the argument.

Wait....I'm not doing this very well. Okay, look, if you've ever been to court you know what I mean. People get all dressed up (well, most of the time) and there's a judge with a robe and a big hammer thingy that he slams when he doesn't like what someone says. It's all up tight. We think this is the #1 reason why it's tough to get to truth in a courtroom (besides the lawyers).

Anyway, we like to keep things a bit goofy and light because it disarms people, takes the grave seriousness out of thing and encourages people to relax. That's the idea anyway. Now, if you know me at all you know I can be serious as a heart attack when I want to be (see also Grand Poobah's block log) but the idea is you give thing a chance to be light and workable and not up tight, stale, and stagnant as a polyester leisure suit. That stuff sucks to just be plain honest.

Cabal Goings On

I've been keeping an eye on things although not participating. I've archived a lot of discussion not because it was bad but because this page was too dang long. I think folks have meant well but we don't want this to get all bogged down with process and procedure like I said above. That's what MedCom is for (well, we hope they don't get bogged down but they do). So, I'm going to sit back for a bit but I reserve the right to BE BOLD and change some stuff in how we do things to make it easer. I think Nicholas did a great job, there's nothing wrong with organization of the front page, that's important. But we can't get so caught up with organization that we don't help people. Savvy? Or do I have to whip out some Grand Poobah whoopass for ya?

One More Thing.....

I'd like to introduce the new Mac Pro.....

No, seriously, here's the one more thing. I set up the Coordinator's Desk so that folks can leave me messages and missives about getting bent and stuff like that there. I'll also throw up some secret plans (ideas) from time to time. So, feel free to post stuff over there.

Well, that's it, I'm glad to be here to help out and let's cabal again just like we did last summer!!

--Wgfinley 04:33, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Proposed Project: Alternative Dispute Resolution

I have posted Alternative Dispute Resolution as a proposed group at Wikipedia:Wikiproject/List_of_proposed_projects#Alternative_Dispute Resolution. The project would improve/create articles in the main namespace relating to negotiation, conciliation, facilitation, arbitration and other alternatives to litigation. Thought the users at mediation cabal might be interested. Lets see if it gains sufficient participatants and go from there.--Edivorce 17:29, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Looks like a good idea Edivorce, you might also want to check out Wikipedia:Mediation (2005) for some ideas, it's something Kim and I put together when coming up with TINMC and could stand to see the light of day. --Wgfinley 01:20, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Wgfinley. I'd be happy to review the article. The proposed project is directed toward articles on dispute resolution IRL. I hope this topic will be of interest to members of the cabal.--Edivorce 16:20, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Userbox

Would anybody be against having a TINMC userbox? I have no time to make one right now, but the text could be something along the lines of 'There is no Mediation Cabal. However, if there was one, this user would be a member.' Firestorm 21:58, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't see the benefit really :) You could just write it out on your user page, but then I'm generally against user boxes, so feel fee to disregard my opinion. :) - FrancisTyers 22:06, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Frankly I don't like them other than babel and where needed. I won't oppose it if you guys want to use one though. --Wgfinley 00:29, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, due to the fact that userboxes are a hot topic, it might not be diplomatic. Especially if you get asked to mediate in a userbox dispute ;-) Kim Bruning 02:44, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Well hey, why do you think I didn't lay down a grand poobah edict that userboxes suck and shouldn't be used? :P --Wgfinley 04:09, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

If you wanted me to say "because you are a wise poobah, as well as grand", you have another thing coming. :-P Kim Bruning 04:23, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

{{user medcab}} Share and enjoy. --Fasten 15:32, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

use of strikethrough

Just wanted to encourage people to use the "strikethrough" done by <s>blah</s> when updating article mediation status, instead of deleting what was written previously. That way people can see both when the case was taken up, and when it was resolved. (As a side note, it's very satisfying.) Yours, Sdedeo (tips) 06:00, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality dispute

Moved to Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Complaints

History?

I see that the format around here has been changed... I requested mediation back in November and Happycamper helped to referee. The problem has remanifested itself, and I need to cite my old request for mediation from the cabal to document that I (we) have attempted to previously exhaust all available remedies in our dispute. However, when looking in my contribution history the request is now gone and there don't appear to be any archives or history @ the cabal. Any advice on how I can find my old request? Cyberdenizen 17:08, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Have you checked the archives? Volume 1; Volume 2. If you can tell us the title of the article or mediation, we can look around! Sdedeo (tips) 19:13, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

We found it! Thanks!Cyberdenizen 03:52, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Backlog?

I put in a request two weeks ago. How much longer will it be before I can expect some guidance ? The editor I'm discussing with won't use talk pages, and I don't know where else I'm supposed to find help. Sandy 00:26, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Template Medcab2

I added the question "Would you be willing to mediate yourself and accept an assignment as a mediator?" to the {{Medcab2}}. --Fasten 10:57, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Wenn you pick a case where the submitter is willing to mediate him - or herself and the list of open cases has a backlog please consider assigning a case to the submitter. That might require giving a short introduction and, maybe, keeping an eye on the mediation case now and then.

It might also be a good idea to invite other parties in a dispute to become mediators. Having been a mediator may help a lot in avoiding future disputes. --Fasten 18:51, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-02-10 Zhuangzi

I suggest that the enthusiasm of some would-be mediators be curbed. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:50, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Mel... a general rule of thumb is that it's best not to kick people who offer help, even if you don't want the help. a polite 'thanks, but no thanks' is usually more than sufficient. you can always kick them later if they won't get out of your hair.

uuunhh... though try not to kick yourself in the head in the process. [I do love mixed metaphors... lol]

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Twrigley (talk • contribs) 17:31, 22 February 2006

Perhaps; but then there are genuine offers of help and the other kind... --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:54, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Requested help re: Abraham Lincoln and PJM

I seem to have trouble making this a formal case, I've succeeded in step one but not step two.

I note that PJM has declared himself part of an anti-vandal group. However, my edits were not vandalism (they gave further details as to why historians argue his sleeping with men was common - historical perspective shows that there was a shortage of housing on the frontier, eg the then "Northwest" where Lincoln lived. This was also the case during WWII, where people, generally shift factory workers, often rented "hot beds" - literally sharing a bed during different shifts of the day, due to the housing shortage.)

PJM, according to his talk page (Note #5 - "Vandalism"), has jumped the gun before, reverting perfectly good edits. He may have a bias towards any edit without a full summary. He did not try to discuss this with me, just left a message stating that my edit was "determined to be unhelpful" and was reverted. Apparently he did not even read it. Nor did he look at my log to see where I reverted vandalism on Diane Keaton, NPOV on Julian Lincoln Simon, Sea Org, etc.

Is this member and the anti-vandal group aware of the standards for edit disputes, eg "assume good faith" and attempt to discuss disagreements? I did not post on his talk page as he had already given me the equivalent of a "first strike", and if he jumps the gun on edits, I am concerned he might also jump the gun on calling "troll" or further punishing me in some way. Again, I don't believe he read the edit I made. 67.10.133.121 22:38, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry For My Break

Sorry all, been very hectic in RL lately and I haven't been on much. Things seem to be clearing up and I hope to do some editing tomorrow of which getting at the requests will be top priority. Seems folks have been stepping up and taking cases which is good, let's keep it going. --Wgfinley 23:12, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Help me template

Is the use of the {{help me}} template on WP:MEDCAB an acceptable use of the template when the list of incoming cases is getting too long? --Fasten 11:48, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I think it is rather used for asking help to the WelCom members. --Neigel von Teighen 20:08, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Before we leave the 10 day estimated response time I'd rather give it a try. --Fasten 12:20, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

This is not a good idea as it triggers an alert every 3 minutes on the IRC channel #wikipedia-bootcamp --Fasten ^talk|med 13:43, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

My self-resurrection

Dear Cabalists:

I have taken the decision to return to Wikipedia, and indeed have risen from the wikidead, so to speak, on my own volition. I made my decision to leave Wikipedia whilst in one of my depressive states of mind, and in the interim month since my self-immolation my state of mind has improved considerably. I recognise it was grossly unfair of me to abandon my duties here on Wikipedia, and to immediately place upon Kim and Wgfinley the onus of ensuring the duties of my medcab position were fulfilled. I wish to take this opportunity to apologise most humbly for abandoning Wikipedia, this initiative, and my colleagues during my lack of self-control and perseverance. I feel that, because of my unreliability, it would be unwise for me to assume my previous position as manager of the medcab; however, I might - if I may - return to a reduced degree here, as a mediator, and perhaps do some degree of coordination. My only concern is, however, that I am not sure whether I may relapse into my old state of mind, and as a consequence it is unwise to rely upon me to any major degree.

I would like to thank all of the hard-working mediators and management here at the Mediation Cabal for their diligent and most valuable work. I hope to be able to assist in perhaps getting things running a little more smoothly, because in my absence the workload has increased almost threefold; I hope I shall be able to tackle something.

Yours, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 00:16, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

StrangerInParadise

I see SiP has added herself to the list, at the top no less. I don't know if anyone patrols the list at all, but my experiences with SiP have been negative, and I wish to alert the cabal to this. See Wikipedia talk:Three-revert rule for more William M. Connolley 09:41, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Also: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#StrangerInParadise_spambot_spamming_userpages William M. Connolley 13:55, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Some quotes that made me smile

Humour. Humour is a characteristic by no means possessed by everybody. Third party responsibilities are exacting and un-remitting. The peacekeeper therefore needs to cultivate a sense of humour, as much as he needs to be possessed of good humour. The first ensures that he can employ a light touch when a light touch is needed to ease an otherwise intractable situation; it helps him to relax and make others relax at times of stress and high tension. Good humour makes for good working relations, because a man of good humour is accessible and approachable — a quality of considerable importance in a peacekeeper when negotiating with the respective parties in a dispute.

... the third party's weapon is not a self loading rifle but his ability without force or threats to persuade both sides to avoid violence and settle their differences by peaceful means ...

Both from The Peacekeeper's Handbook. :) Hopefully they'll make you smile too. - FrancisTyers 15:16, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Advocate Cabal

Hello all: I've recently started the Wikipedia:Advocate Cabal, because it looked to me that the AMA was a bit on the broken side and some sort of informal initiative might be able to plug the gap until they've fixed their various administrative issues. I notice that the mediation backlogue here is very long, and I wonder if perhaps some cases which could in fact be better served by an advocate could be directed towards the new initiative. In addition, advocates are very welcome for the new initiative, although if you do volunteer for both projects you should be sure that you won't advocate cases you're mediating or vice versa to prevent conflict of interest. Many thanks, and best regards, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 04:30, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

My opinion is, feel free to mention the Advocate Cabal on the page of the Mediation Cabal (somewhere in the header, around the link to WP:3O would be my suggestion) and explain when to go to the Advocate Cabal and when to apply here. As for moving existing cases to the Advocate Cabal: Contacting the submitter and asking vim to move a case to the Advocate Cabal shouldn't be a problem and moving cases without contacting the submitter would be dubious. --Fasten 12:18, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal Re-assignments

Here is a case where a mediator is not impartial but isn't (at least not yet) willing to step down or assume an impartial position. The case itself is not particularly important but the Mediation Cabal has no way to deal with the problem. The Mediation Cabal assumes the authority to assign a single person to the position of mediator; to make that meaningful the Mediation Cabal cannot recommend to ignore and work around mediators, as that may lead to difficult situations with more than one mediator. I guess we need at least a recommended procedure on how to remove mediators from the office when it is obvious that they are not accomplishing anything or are not even trying. Please don't assume that the example case is already requiring action, this is merely a theoretical escalation of the example case. --Fasten ^talk|med 19:09, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

• User_talk:Rohirok#Complaints_concerning_Mediation_Case:_Natasha_Demkina
• User_talk:Rohirok#Only_One_Kind_of_Fresh_Start_Acceptable
• User_talk:Fasten#What_kind_of_mediation_is_this.3F.21

Originally I tried to get as many people as possible to respond at once, but at least two, so that you've got each others back. One mediator per case is one of the current practices that scares the heck out of me, since it gets you back to the high stress situations that the mediation committee has so much trouble with.. If one of the mediators in a team is clearly screwing up, give them a whack over the head and ask them to go bother someone else. :-) Kim Bruning 21:42, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Opentask

I made a template Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Opentask and put it as a reference in Template:Opentask:

--Fasten 18:50, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Kantian guilt?

I don't see the part in Categorical imperative that construes the maxim to mean "Only ask others to do what you yourself would do". Any sensible notion of division of labor implies that some people are good at some tasks, and not at others. By no means does it make sense that if I ask you to bake me a cake, that I would consider myself willing or able to bake you a cake. But that doesn't mean I won't happily build you a bridge.

It seems to me the maxim is more closely "Don't do things that you would not want others to do", a sort of philosopher's ivory-tower reconstruction of the Golden Rule. This is not the same thing.

It by no means follows, even by the Categorical Imperative, that asking for specialized help means that I too am willing to offer that same specialized help.

So, I don't see the justification of the guilt-trip in the medcab request form:

"Would you be willing to mediate yourself and accept an assignment as a mediator in a different case? This is, following the Categorical Imperative, the idea that you might want to do what you expect others to do. You don't have to, of course, that's why it's a question."

- Keith D. Tyler ¶ 00:54, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

"Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it would become a universal law."

implies, in my opinion, that a willingness to contribute to common tasks that are available to the general public and for the greater public good is desirable. I admit that I add the premises that wikipedia does require voluntary service (trivial) and that the Mediation Cabal is a desirable contribution (follows from WP:DR). --Fasten 11:48, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Division of labor does not exist as distinctly on wikipedia as in working life (most roles are open to everybody). If you want to use a public encyclopedia like wikipedia you might want to have a look at the open tasks now and then. That is not a requirement but a maxim you could will to become a universal law. --Fasten 11:48, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

A more general maxim could be to consume in balance with goods and services offered. Lacking money, an attempt to create such a balance, in the wikipedia community that would mean that you might decide to contribute to the services you require from others. Picking a mediation case when you submit a mediation case is contributing to the balance within the Mediation Cabal. --Fasten 11:48, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with availability. It has to do with specialization. Contributing to the community can be done in many different ways. You should do what you are good at. You try to close an open circle by treating MedCab as a self-contained community. But MedCab doesn't exist to serve only itself. It exists to serve a larger community. You're trying to switch tracks by then saying that you implicity join the MedCab community by asking for its external services. I don't become an employee of the dry cleaners just because I dropped off my laundry, and I certainly would never make the mistake of offering to perform dry cleaning (I'd probably accidentally asphyxiate from the perchloroethylene). - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 21:14, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

By your reasoning it is perfectly okay for a highly-paid specialist to work only in his or her area of expertise. This, however, creates a community where everybody who is capable to be a highly-paid specialist is likely to choose such a profession and dedicate his or her available work time exclusively to that profession. This may appear desirable to some people but I have to disagree:

• It may devalue professions that cater to basic needs but require highly qualified people (e.g. medical practitioners, teachers), especially when competitive payment is difficult to maintain for a given community.
• It may turn sensible community services into payed professions (because people try to achieve a competitive income or merely employment).
• It can convince people to pursue a narrow education (I would, for example, not claim expertise in any other serious field of education besides computer science).

Strict division of labor and specialization is not a maxim I would will to become a universal law. --Fasten 15:48, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I do not consider the Mediation Cabal to be an independent community I merely assume that it is a desirable maxim that, lacking any reason to receive compensating support ^[1], the consumers of a specific service should also contribute to support that service (consume in balance). A further reason could be that people who require mediation may learn from being mediators. The maxim here could be that you could will that people who may lack desirable skills or insights should be encouraged to adopt roles where these skills or insights are promoted.

^[1] e.g. families do have a reason to receive financial/community support.

Fasten 15:48, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

This makes MC sound like community college for mediators, something akin to getting your hair cut at a barber school. Anyway, regardless of any merit to your position, I think it is a fallacious misconstruction of the categorical imperative, which seems to be focused on what you should not expect of others rather than what you should expect of anyone. The points you make about my position of only providing services you are good at pale in comparison to the problem of tainting the services available with unskilled providers. I don't agree that adding bad teachers is better than having less good teachers. By adding bad teachers, you devalue the quality of the service provided. If you want a good education, you're better off at a private university than a community college, not just taking the services of anyone who will serve you. By my philosophy, in order to expand services, you should encourage training in the skills needed, not open the standard such that anyone can provide. This does not have a good logical conclusion. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 22:00, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Asking somebody who submits a mediation case to mediate means asking somebody who recognizes the value of mediation but may lack the ability to mediate to mediate in a case where he has no personal interest. I think these are opportune conditions to learn to mediate. --Fasten 13:55, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

If you want a good education you may be better off at a school where pupils are brought to a standard where they can be teachers to lesser grades. You can do that by requiring pupils to become teachers. When you can teach a subject to somebody else you often gain further understanding than by just trying to understand it when it is properly presented. --Fasten 13:55, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

How do you train the skills for mediation? Within the context of Wikipedia the Mediation Cabal may be as close as you can get. I agree that it may be desirable that senior mediators should keep an eye on some cases - maybe on request by the disputants. There are, however, to few senior mediators currently available to make this possible in all cases where new mediators are assigned. --Fasten 13:55, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't see the danger of tainting the services because mediators have no authority and disputants are advised to read the Suggestions_for_mediators, where the behaviour you can expect from mediators is explained. --Fasten 13:55, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Concerning the relationship to the Categorical Imperative:

You could will it would become a universal law that ...

1. people who demand a community service try to contribute to community services in the same community. Whether this is the same or a different service may be secondary but a certain diversity may be desirable to counter the undesirable effects of a purely efficiency driven division of labor.
2. people who show a lack of social skills (which may be the case for some submitters/disputants) show willingness to improve their skills.
3. people volunteer for community service.

I would agree that the wording of {{medcab2}} doesn't explain this in detail. --Fasten 13:55, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I didn't understand your argument about the fallacious misconstruction ... focused on what you should not expect. --Fasten 14:10, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I meant that the Categorical Imperative seems to be about avoiding certain expectations rather than inspiring a sense of expected duty, which is how it seems to be being used in the medcab req form. The explanations at Categorical imperative seem to boil down to "if you would never consider doing it yourself, don't expect anyone else to"; whereas on the medcab req form it is "if you expect other people to do something, you should do it as well". These aren't reflexive. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 18:35, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

• "if you would never consider doing it yourself, don't expect anyone else to (do it)" (A)
• "if you expect other people to do something, you should (be willing to) do it as well" (B)

A is merely a negative formulation of B and the word yourself is a reflexive pronoun. --Fasten 20:17, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

New flyer

The Mediation Cabal

You are a disputant in a case listed under Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases. We invite you to be a mediator in a different case. Please read How do I get a mediator assigned to my case? for more information.
SteveBot (talk) 07:30, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

--Fasten 15:00, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal evidence template generator

In case anyone's interested here's a little perl script I wrote that will prompt you for all the information the Mediation Cabal evidence template requires and generate a template for you automatically. -- noosphere 06:28, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Announcing: My return as coordinator

Dear Cabalists: Just a quick note to say that I'm returning to the Mediation Cabal as coordinator, based on Wgfinley's assent for me to do so, and I look forward to coordinating this initiative once again and (hopefully) get this case queue moving a bit more. Well, erm, it looks like there's a lot of work that needs doing, and I hope within the next few days to work on streamlining and speeding up how we do things here. I note quite a few things have changed since I last saw the medcab. I hope that we can try to shift this backlogue rapidly, as it looks like although mediation is taking place some cases have gone a bit on the "stale" side, that is, the sensible time for mediation has passed. I'd like to thank Wgfinley for his work during my temporary absence, and also to the fine mediators here at the Mediation Cabal for their hard work. If anyone has any questions or concerns please do drop me a talk page message. Best regards, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 00:08, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Yay! :)) Welcome back! - FrancisTyers 00:27, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Welcome back. --Fasten 14:15, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Senior mediators

There have been a few complaints about unskilled mediators. It may be a good idea to provide some guidance to new mediators by assigning senior mediators on request. (Also hinted at in "Kantian guilt?"). I would recommend to add a further table column to the assignment table (senior mediator) and assign senior mediators in case of complaints or on request by disputants or inexperienced mediators. --Fasten 14:15, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Removal of invite mediator part of request process

It'd be wrong to say to disputants that one could only make an application if you can invite someone to mediate [1]

Actually the idea wasn't to demand that from anybody but to make the Mediation Cabal a process that needs little support from permanent members. If all disputants are invited to mediate the chances are high that a sufficient amount accept the invitation and all cases can be dealt with even when about one third (estimated) of the submitters are not willing to mediate. That would allow to put the volunteer effort of the Mediation Cabal into providing senior mediators. --Fasten 19:32, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I like the sentiment behind the idea, Fasten, but the problem is that I'd rather not encourage all and sundry to become mediators for the reason that mediators have to have a special inclination towards neutrality and common agreement. Roping disputants in as mediators has the serious problem in my view for the simple reason that those involved in disputes are more likely to be individuals who do not appreciate the finer nuances of communication, and common resolution of difficulties - because after all, if they were capable as mediators, they wouldn't need to be requesting assistance from the Cabal; they could have resolved it themselves already. Although membership of the Mediation Cabal is open to any and all volunteers, a thought must be spared to ensure that we are getting the right type of people volunteering - it seems that drawing mediators from those undergoing disputes is too apt to produce quality control issues in mediation (which is something I'm looking into, and will publish an analysis on this talk page shortly). Best regards, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 20:40, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

The Mediation Cabal is informal mediation (and an early step in dispute resolution). I would recommend quality control in the form of senior mediators picking cases and commenting as it seems necessary but not as a formal process behind an informal one. --Fasten 19:46, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Although inviting people to take an interest in dispute resolution and training disputants to become mediators is not a declared purpose of the Mediation Cabal this may, in the long run, help to decrease the number of disputes and raise general civility among people who previously had no experience in dispute resolution. I think that's well worth the trouble of dealing with inexperienced mediators. It may even be educational for disputants who need to verify why their (inexperienced) mediator is not acceptable and have to read the suggestions for mediators to be able to do that. --Fasten 19:46, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Have to agree with Nicholas here. Sdedeo (tips) 23:34, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

hey gang

Hi all -- I'm back on wiki and back on medcabal after a wikibreak. It's fantastic to see how much work people have done, and it looks like nearly all the cases have been taken up. Way to go! Sdedeo (tips) 23:34, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Possible mediation case?

Would the case described in User:SPUI/Curpsbot be within the scope of the Mediation Cabal? --SPUI (T - C - RFC - Curpsbot problems) 03:17, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

You stated that you didn't get a reply but you did get a reply: User_talk:Curps#Please_stop_assuming_bad_faith. If Curps agrees that you two do have a dispute and need mediation you can file a mediation request but I suspect that ve would disagree with this view. If you think ve is abusing privileges you can file a user conduct RFC concerning administrator privileges or contact the Association of Members' Advocates. --Fasten 11:59, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Review column

I've added a "review" column to the assignment table. It means that a mediator who has reviewed a case can offer a second opinion on the case to any interested party. It can also be used to put a second mediator on a case when there is a reason to doubt that the assigned mediator is able to handle the case alone (e.g. when ve is new to wikipedia). The second mediator can review the mediation while its going on and provide assistance. This second interpretation is just an offer how to introduce quality control to mediation cases with inexperienced mediators. --Fasten 14:59, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

woah, woah

I just saw that User:Ellis2ca has been assigned as a mediator? Are you aware that he is in the middle of an edit war? He is not too up on how wikipedia works, and usually is not logged in when he makes edits, but here is a recent diff [2] when he did happen to be logged in. He seems to usually edit from this IP.

If I don't hear from anyone on this soon, I'm going to take his name off -- he does not seem to be an appropriate person right now to bring in as a mediator and it doesn't appear as if he volunteered to do this.

Sdedeo (tips) 18:48, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree, I think - not really suitable mediator material, doing a cursory investigation of contribs. I'll remove him from the list and leave him a note. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 19:34, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

OK -- thanks. I'll take over that case. Sdedeo (tips) 20:10, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Request for participation template

I've created a new template for putting on dispute participant talk pages, to facilitate the process of requesting people to take part in a mediator (in keeping with the orange box header style; I'm not sure where we arrived at this style for the medcab, but I thought I'd go along with it anyway). One can use the following syntax:

{{subst:medcab-participant-request|MediatorName|CaseName}}

and stick it on a dispute participant's talk page. It uses an includeonly hack in such a way as the template is self-signing, so that one's sig is within the div box. MediatorName is whatever first name the mediator would like to be referred to, just for friendliness; casename is the medcab case identifier for the mediation case (such as "2006-01-16 Deathrock & Deathrock fashion" for the Deathrock case). It automatically uses the page name from which to get the username. Below is an example use of it, using this case as an example. I hope this is of use to someone. Best regards, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 23:52, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

The Mediation Cabal: Request for case participation

Dear Mediation Cabal/2006 Archive: Hello, my name is Nicholas; 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: Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-01-16 Deathrock & Deathrock fashion 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 or queries 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, NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 23:52, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

One problem I've found is beginning a mediation on a talk page, having others join in, and then have the newcomers disavow any desire to participate in a mediation. Any suggestions for how to solve this? I think I'll begin by using that "medcab template" at the top of the talk page in question. Sdedeo (tips) 22:03, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

A couple picky points:

The header should read "From the Mediation Cabal: Request for case participation"

The message starts "Dear Mediation Cabal". It should read "Dear Wikipedian"

Richard 16:08, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

The template refers to Dear {{PAGENAME}}. --Fasten 10:39, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Strangerinparadise

User:StrangerInParadise is listed as a cabalist, but see this RfA: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Guanaco,_MarkSweep,_et_al, where "StrangerInParadise is disruptive" and "StrangerInParadise is uncivil" were passed unanimously, and "StrangerInParadise placed on personal attack parole" was as well. Perhaps someone closer to the core of cabal power could remove him from the list for cause? Sdedeo (tips) 22:00, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think anybody has the authority to prevent vim from putting his name on the list if he chooses to do so. --Fasten 13:56, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Mediators

I have a comment/query. I recently noticed a newish editor ask for mediation here in relation to an article where he was the one who was clearly at fault (not familiar with the content policies, didn't know how to use sources). The mediation was, I believe, accepted, but in return for this, the editor was asked if he would be willing to mediate a case himself, and in fact, I believe was given one. Given that this editor is, so far as I can tell, quite unfamiliar with Wikipedia and our policies, is it wise to ask him to mediate? I'm not mentioning names, because I'm assuming this is a general policy of yours, that to receive, editors also have to give. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:08, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

First a thought specific to the above situation. Maybe newbie mediators need a mentor or coach who can watch them and guide them as they take on a case.

Now a more general observation. Having read this entire page, there seems to be a history of saying if X has violated some Wikipedia policy (e.g. sockpuppets or NoPersonalAttacks or EditWarring or whatever), then X should not be a mediator.

However, I'm starting to see a perverse logic to why suggesting that someone who is involved in a dispute (even one including PersonalAttacks and EditWarring) should be invited to mediate another dispute. Maybe, just maybe, the experience of mediating between two or more unreasonable people will help the person "see the light" about how disruptive and distasteful such behavior is. Trying to help other people come to an agreement may help the person learn how to be more conciliatory the next time he/she gets involved in a dispute?

Any thoughts on this philosophy?

Richard 08:33, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps, so long as they know the policies. The particular editor I had in mind above shouldn't be mediating by any standard, so it's worrying that, not only is he allowed to, he was encouraged to. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:18, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Sanity and common sense carry a long way, I suppose, but perhaps you're right. Would you be willing to help sort out that kind of thing, and see if it's still a tenable plan or not? You're an expert informal mediator yourself, after all! :-) Kim Bruning 13:08, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand how the Mediation Cabal works

Maybe I haven't been diligent enough in my reading so please help me in my laziness.

I checked out a couple of the "New Cases without mediator" and saw where someone had issued a request for information. In some cases, that information was provided. Does this mean the case is now being mediated by the person who issued the request for information?

I am thinking about getting involved in the Mediation Cabal but I'm trying to test the waters by dipping my toe in first. Mixing metaphors, I also don't want to step on anybody's toes by inserting myself as a mediator where there is already one involved.

Also, do I have to start by putting myself on the mediator list before I can take on a case?

Do I wait to be assigned or do I assign myself by jumping into one of the "New Cases without mediator"?

Richard 08:27, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

The original mediation cabal was a kind of swarming phenomenon, where everyone went to each case together as a semi-team, and talked with all involved, and sorted it out. Typically Really Quick. Now it's being run by other folks, and it's more of a one-on-one thing, and more traditional, as I understand it. I wonder! :-) Kim Bruning 13:11, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, that helps but my key questions remain unanswered.

Do I have to start by putting myself on the mediator list before I can take on a case?

No, the mediator list is for people who want to be known as cabal mediators and are willing to answer questions, provide help and accept the occasional assignment. It is not a requirement to be on this list to accept mediation cases. --Fasten 14:09, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Do I wait to be assigned or can I assign myself by jumping into one of the "New Cases without mediator"?

Richard 16:02, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

You can pick any case that doesn't have a mediator. The list "New Cases without mediator" is for your convenience. The authoritative list is the list above that. Sometimes the list above contains new entries that haven't yet made it into the new cases, because the submitter couldn't be bothered. Please read How do I get a mediator assigned to my case? --Fasten 14:09, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Unless someone says otherwise- *looks around to see if anyone is drawing an objectionable face*.

Hmm, ok, well, just check to be sure you're not crashing into anyone (look before you leap) and jump in.

I always thought it was wiser to NOT put your name on the list, (hello!?... what kind of cabal has it's membership out in the open? :-P ) but that's just me. :-)

Did we make this too simple? Scary! If you want a bit of a guide, one thing you can do before starting is check out The policy trifecta, and try to puzzle out why the writer chose precicely *those* three. After that, stay out of trouble, don't be afraid to ask others for help, and have fun! Kim Bruning 07:58, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

BD2412

I begin by acknowledging that I, Rawhide4u, am a "newbie" as they say and the rules and regulations are relatively new to me. I was introduced to this venue as it being a “free”, “non-bias” display of factual information. However, the issue at hand is that many of my factual, non-bias edits and links are being blatantly removed and/or re-edited by user BD2412.

I would understand if my edits hinged on copyright infringement, were blatantly untrue, etc. but quite the contrary. Additionally, while attempting to communicate with user BD2412, I posted a “user talk” comment in response to his post on my “user talk” and he promptly removed my posts by “archiving” his user talk. Childish at best this seems but it has already raised a concern with me and I’ve been a member for only 1 day now.

I was completely under the impression that this was a “neutral” and “free” venue for factual information. If ones non-bias information can be removed and/or edited at one’s sole discretion, then what is the point of providing the factual information?

I hope someone looks into this particular issue.

Rawhide4u 02:40, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Assuming that BD2412 is game, you should go through the procedure listed here to get a mediation cabal case going. Someone will get around to helping. However, since you've only been here for a day, you might want to try some of the other suggestions under dispute resolution. -- Joebeone (Talk) 17:34, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

<whacks Joebeone over the head> Procedure young grasshopper? What is this thing, procedure? Can you help this dude out, or not? Kim Bruning 16:46, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, I could point him to guidelines that says people are allowed to archive their talk pages whenever they want, and then point to guidelines that say that not answering questions posted to talk pages (or deleting warnings) is a sign of bad faith. Other than that, I'm not sure what to do. -- Joebeone (Talk) 22:53, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Rawhide4u is trying to manipulate the system to gain sympathy while pushing a scam which asserts that there is no income tax. I encountered this user was with respect to his edits to Irwin Schiff, an article which has been subject to frequent attacks by tax protesters - persons who, like Schiff, adhere to various unreasonable conspiracy theories to justify their greed-driven claims that they don't have to pay income tax. Many of the people who forward such theories are scam artists, who use claims of an easy out from paying taxes as a way to sell their books, tapes, and lectures.[3] This user's first edit to the article was to change an NPOV statement - that Schiff claims that taxes are applied incorrectly - to a POV declaration that Schiff shows taxes are applied incorrectly. [4]. This, despite the fact that Schiff has recently been sentenced to 13 years in prison for fraud based on a federal court finding that Schiff's claims about the tax code were nonsense. In short, this editor added a completely and provably false statement into the article, which I corrected. This editor then made a series of similar edits to the Schiff article, claiming for example that Schiff's encouraging people to break the law "helped many individuals" [5] (apparently based on "testimonials" on the website where Schiff sells his books from people who now feel good about cheating on their taxes), and adding links to Schiff's website that support Schiff's conspiracy theory. I did not remove these claims, but balanced them with additional information, including Schiff's own statement that "the entire federal judiciary is involved in a monumental, criminal conspiracy to collect income taxes in violation of law". He has behaved similarly with respect to other articles - here, Rawhide4u removed a large block of text added by another contributor who is an acknowledged expert on the tax code: [6]. I restored the text, and re-wrote some of it to make it more encyclopedic.

With respect to this user's activities on my talk page, there has been a notice posted atop the page all month long stating that I'm trying to take a Wikibreak, and asking users, "Please do not post messages here during my absence unless you have an emergency." Despite this notice, and my respectful request to keep the conversation in one place, this user made sixteen edits to my talk page, including restoring posts that I had archived (I pointed out to him early on exactly why I was removing those posts and where these posts were being archived[7], and I added links to my archives on my talk page just for his convenience [8]). Rawhide4u's conduct has been, frankly, trollish, e.g. "I should have known Irwin Schiff was written by an Attorney. Your attempt to "discredit" his findings seems quite obvious. In regard to Schiff's birth place, date, etc. I am NOT a fanatic of his. I just happen to know how to read the Internal Revenue Code Book. Perhaps you should acquire one, it may enlighten you."[9] (along with the clearly false statement that "there is NO law requiring individuals working, for a non-governmental company, are liable to pay income tax". Further posts to my talk page contained comments like "You are most definitely NOT a trial Attorney.... What University did you attend??....LOL" [10]; "Your analogy... is extremely poor. ... That University of yours is looking better every moment….LOL"[11] Despite his complaints about my archiving, he also deleted (without archiving) our conversation from his talk page[12]. And despite all this, he comes here to complain about me. Coincidentally, this comes a few weeks after I nominated another load of tax protester propaganda for deletion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tax Honesty Movement - it should come as no surprise that, shortly after this event, an editor who claims that there is no income tax and flaunts illegal conduct should seek to snipe at me until he gets a rise out of me, and then complain of my behavior. I have conducted myself properly with respect to this user and his factually incorrect, agenda-pushing edits, and I will engage in no mediation with one who so blatantly seeks to abuse the privilege of editing Wikipedia. bd2412 T 00:44, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't see what mediation would entail. Rawhide4u is trying to push arguments so thoroughly discredited that federal judges apply "frivolous argument" penalties to those making them.

[W]hen a judge calls an argument "ridiculous" or "frivolous," it is absolutely the worst thing the judge could say. It means that the person arguing the position has absolutely no idea of what he is doing, and has completely wasted everyone's time. It doesn't mean that the case wasn't well argued, or that judge simply decided for the other side, it means that there was no other side. The argument was absolutely, positively, incompetent. The judge is not telling you that you were "wrong." The judge is telling you that you are out of your mind.[13](emphasis mine)

I was not involved in any of BD2412's edits above, but I would have made similar edits myself if I had noticed. NPOV prohibits treating fringe theories as anything other than fringe theories. Robert A.West (Talk) 03:10, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Dear fellow editors: I second what BD2412 has written. Rawhide4u has made POV edits to tax related Wikipedia articles. I caught him or her in one instance removing, from a Wikipedia article, a direct quote from a primary legal source (the actual text of a statute) with the false statement that the quote was either not in the statute or was somehow irrelevant (I forget his/her exact words, but it's in the record). Rawhide4u seems to feel that direct quotes from primary legal sources regarding U.S. tax laws are somehow "biased" while his tax protester rhetoric is somehow not biased.

I should add that my introduction to Rawhide4u came about through an unsolicited post on my own talk page a few days ago, wherein he tried to lecture me for some reason on the legal niceties of section 3401 of the Internal Revenue Code. Prior to that post I was not even familiar with the name "Rawhide4u." His brief lecture consisted of a legally frivolous and only semi-coherent rehash of incorrect arguments about section 3401.

Rawhide4u seems to feel he is on an important mission. However, Wikipedia is not properly to be used as a cyberspace soapbox to try to convince or persuade people that legally frivolous conspiracy theories are somehow legally valid despite the fact that these theories have been uniformly rejected by the courts for the past thirty years. I'm sorry, but edits by Rawhide4u are subject to the same Wikipedia rules as those of any other editor, especially Verifiability and Neutral Point of View. Yours, Famspear 14:14, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Dear fellow editors: I believe I see why Rawhide4u began posting on my talk page this week regarding Internal Revenue Code section 3401. In early April, an anonymous user at IP address 24.126.162.199 inserted a portion of the text of IRC section 3401 in the article on the Internal Revenue Code and then, at 12:14 on 3 April 2006, attempted to falsify the quotation from the statute by changing one word in a significant way. I caught that user, and the falsification was also documented by me at the user talk page for IP 24.126.162.199. The first posting by Rawhide4u on my talk page (on 23:05 on 22 April 2006 or at 23 April at 05:05 depending on how the time is displayed in Wikipedia) was originally signed by an anonymous user at -- guess where! -- IP 24.126.162.199. Several editions were made by user 24.126.162.199 and then, at 00:42 on 23 April 2006 (or at 06:42 on 23 April 2006, depending on how the time is displayed) the signature was changed from "24.126.162.199" to that of "Rawhide4u". Based on an analysis of the posts by the anon user at IP 24.126.162.199 and the posts by user Rawhide4u, does anyone see a relationship here? Perhaps a Wikipedia administrator can enlighten us. Yours, Famspear 21:16, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Reducing Backlog

In an attempt to reduce the backlog of the case list, I have sifted through the first twenty cases or so and have found a majority of them to have no activity for 3 months +. I made a note on those that showed inactivity for this time and I hope to have them declared closed if there are no objections. If these cases are still requiring mediation then there should be no problem in re-aquiring the case from the archive section afterwards. Cowman109^Talk 03:29, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I award you a 15px Barnstar for cleaning up the attic ;-) --Fasten 14:18, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks! :) - FrancisTyers 14:23, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Do you think we need to take Barnstars more seriously and, maybe, draw one for the Mediation Cabal? --Fasten 19:27, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Original Mediation Cabal

In "I don't understand how the Mediation Cabal works" Kim Bruning wrote: The original mediation cabal was a kind of swarming phenomenon, where everyone went to each case together as a semi-team, and talked with all involved, and sorted it out. Typically Really Quick. Now it's being run by other folks, and it's more of a one-on-one thing, and more traditional, as I understand it. I wonder!

I don't think the Mediation Cabal is being run by other folks. It's run by every Wikipedian who takes an interest. I don't know when the system of the Mediation Cabal was changed but the oldest archives seem to indicate there was a single mediator. --Fasten 11:05, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

<grin> at least some things stay the same. Originally people on irc were making jokes about a certain group of people who kept mediating things on-the-fly, "they're a kind of mediation cabal!". I decided to add a page to the wiki to make it easier for folks to ask for help. Even today, I (hope) that there's more folks actually doing mediation cabal stuff than that there's actual cases on the page. (On the other hand, there do seem to be a lot of cases eh? Maybe some kind of divide and conquer could be applied?) Kim Bruning 11:46, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Maybe that swarming phenomenon was a good idea. To have something similar I'd recommend that we invite people to take a look at the cases under New Cases without mediator and just leave their comments without taking a case as a mediator. The list is already a part of {{Opentasks}} but we could do more to invite people to leave noncommittal comments. I do that myself occasionally when I think a trivial case can be solved quickly and before a mediator picks the case. --Fasten 11:05, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Or just hop on over to the actual conflict area and act all soothing. :-) Kim Bruning 11:46, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

One problem with cases that are solved before a mediator picks the case is that both the person that did the administrative work and the mediator wasted time just to find out the case is solved. I think we should try to motivate people to cleanup their submissions, otherwise the case list gets cluttered. One way to do that could be to have an admission queue where people can leave comments but no mediator is assigned to the case. Any commentator could then just leave a comment, assign him or herself as a mediator, moving the case directly to a table (which could be similar to the assignment-table) or admit the case to the next queue, where mediators are assigned when available. This way trivial cases could be kept in the admission queue and move to the archive or be deleted without further overhead. The decision what is a trivial case and what isn't would be left to the collective intelligence of the commentators.

The promise that we will help anyone who would like us to would still be kept in that the commentators provide their advice. --Fasten 11:05, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Beware of having too much procedure though! I'm still scratching my head about the assigning yourself as mediator and how that got in ... how on earth can you go "OMG TEH CABAL! (Fnord)" if it's actually publically *known* that the people who are there are actually mediators? Ah well! ;-) Kim Bruning 11:46, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

This may seem like a wierd idea - maybe its been tried before - but how about we get people to make a complaint on the main page, then have a subpage (largely freeform) for the mediation? -- I just end up deleting most of the stuff on the current subpage anyway.

e.g.

==User on [[Romanians]]==
{{main|WP:MEDCAB/<name>}}
Some user is doing something bad.

I probably haven't thought this through enough... but I think something needs to be done :) - FrancisTyers 12:24, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Mediation is for sorting out disagreements between people, not so much about complaints. Any admin can deal with misbehaviour already.

How about mediating on the talk page where the disagreement is? :-) Kim Bruning 21:25, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

The talk page is sometimes too noisy, especially when there is a heated debate. --Fasten 06:35, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

So be teh cabal and cool it down. Sometimes a little rouge helps too!

What I meant to say was that the method and place for the mediation should be left to the mediator. It may be sensible to make quite different decisions depending on the case at hand. A very noisy crowd may require a mediation by email. Using the talk page may be convenient when the circumstances allow it. --Fasten 19:12, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Ah right! I agree. That's wise. Kim Bruning 19:25, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if I'd call it wise. If the dispute is on the talk page it may be difficult to make people use the mediation page instead but when people prefer the mediation page the advantage is that any other noise that may be occuring on the talk page is filtered out. The mediation page is also a better archive of a debate. On the other hand people sometimes just invent new problems on the talk page while the mediation is going on so it may be necessary to reply on the talk page. I think it mostly depends on the circumstances of the debate where and how mediation is preferable. One reason why mediation may be necessary is, unfortunately, that people are undisciplined. --Fasten 20:38, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

From /suggestions

template

I have removed this suggestion:

1. Putting up an {{ActiveDiscussMC}} notice on the disputed page(s) can be helpful to alert everybody do the need to check the talk page, if the mediation is taking place there. This notice is especially useful when anonymous users are editing the page or a large number of users is potentially interested in the outcome.

because it is problematic. In particular, we in general do not like to clutter up article pages with templates -- especially templates like this one, made by a particular informal wikipedia group. Yes, it would be nice if we could put a big banner saying "see the talk page", but we have a small banner already: the "discuss" tab. When there are special things going on, we still don't like article templates: see, for example, {{Controversial}}. The only time a template should be used is when there is an explicit disagreement over the content of the article that can be named -- in which case it is likely that {{neutrality}} or whatever is already up there. Sdedeo (tips) 01:38, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I made that template because I have seen a surprising number of cases where one party of the dispute was anonymous or did not participate in the discussion on the talk page. The reason for a special mediation template is that {{dispute}} may have been shown on the page in question for a longer time and a new template that signifies a new approach is a better invitation to anonymous editors to join the discussion. As the template is unusual it also has a higher chance to spark interest. I see this as a viable approach to contact anonymous editors before using {{sprotect}}. I have to admit the approach seems to have failed on its first application (on the Stuyvesant High School page) --Fasten 12:54, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi Fasten -- the way to handle this IMO is to put polite requests in the edit summary directing people to the talk page. Editors familiar enough with wikipedia to know how to get into an edit war also know how to read the edit summaries on the history page. I'm going to go ahead and modify the template so that it is similar to {{Controversial}}; please revert my edits if you really feel that this template should go on article pages and we can discuss further. Sdedeo (tips) 21:22, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, I have no use for it the way it is now. It defeats the purpose it was made for. My reason for putting it on article pages was to invite inexperienced, anonymous editors to join a dispute instead of changing the article. That seems more polite than an {{sprotect}}. Do you actually think it is require on talk pages? On talk pages I usually make a header "Mediation" and people are bound to notice it when they are used to reading talk pages. --Fasten 14:56, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Made some changes

And annoted in the edit summary. The biggest change is that mediators don't so much advise as that they mediate agreement. :-)

Kim Bruning 01:06, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I changed the wording very slightly. "issues" sounds better than "things", etc ... --Fasten 14:57, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

It sounds better, abut means something else. I really mean things! :-) I should stop being so terse ^^;; Kim Bruning 15:29, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh dear, I might end up reverting entirely like this. Um, to prevent that, let's discuss the next line here:

• If you say "we don't need to follow that here, but..." you suggest that it might be a good idea to follow that procedure anyway
• If you say "we don't follow that here, but..." you suggest that it's probably a bad idea, but that it does have some saving graces.

I was definately aiming at the latter.

Why? The Mediation Cabal is entirely informal and by stating that the official mediation process is not followed here you are trying to introduce a rule. The wording that the official mediation process doesn't need to be followed doesn't try to impose restrictions on the reader, quite to the contrary, it stresses the liberty of the reader to follow the ideas of the official mediation process, if he or she chooses to. This being a list of suggestions and not a policy, not even an inofficial policy, the wording you suggest appears inadequate. --Fasten 14:13, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

<Grin> What a great argument. I am momentarily at loss as to how to respond to that, at least without getting my own ideals in a twist. I admit to being out-cabaled :) Cool. Kim Bruning 19:42, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Note that a lot of these things are probably my own fault for being too terse. :-/

Kim Bruning 15:36, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Case Closed

Case closed, mediators final response... That can be read a wrong way... hmmm... Kim Bruning 13:39, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

"We explicitly don't follow that here" again makes the same mistake: This document is not authoritative, it cannot use wording that implies authority without loosing credibility. I suggest "We don't follow that here explicitly". "Especially why you might prefer private dispute resolution to public dispute resolution." looks like a subordinate clause to me; why did you turn it into a sentence? --Fasten 14:07, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, to my ear "we don't follow that here explicitly" means "no, but implicitly we do", but that might be my interpretation.

What I'd like to express is that the mediation cabal was set up to avoid a large number of (precieved) errors that were made in the mediation committee. If it had not been, it would have failed in the same manner. So what I want to express is that you should take extreme care not to get mired by the process described in that document, because it took so much darn trouble to figure out how to avoid it in the first place. <scratches head> Am I making any sense? Kim Bruning 18:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I rephrased that to "There is no need to follow that here ..." --Fasten 11:05, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

:-) Kim Bruning 11:21, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Oops, that appears to be very close to the original wording. --Fasten 17:34, 21 February 2006 (UTC)