| Revision as of 16:10, 25 January 2004 editMartinHarper (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers24,927 edits from wikien-l← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 19:35, 12 November 2018 edit undoRGloucester (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Pending changes reviewers38,757 edits rdr to mainTag: New redirect | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| #REDIRECT ] | |||
| Welcome! Thank you for coming. Sit down and have a cup of ]. We'll be with you momentarily. Have a deep breath or three.<br> | |||
| ...<br> | |||
| There, that's better. | |||
| ----- | |||
| ==In short, what is mediation ?== | |||
| :''The whole point of mediation is to get people to talk, listen, try to think things through logically and reasonable (emphasis on reason) so that some compromises can be reached to everyone's satisfaction. ''Alex756. | |||
| Mediation is the activity in which a neutral third party (the mediator) assists two or more parties (the editors in conflict) in order to help ''']''', with concrete effects, on a matter of common interest. | |||
| During mediation, each party can have a break, sit down with the mediator and the other party, have the opportunity to explain his/her situation, listen to each other, work together to achieve an agreement and make a ] over the issue at stake. | |||
| ===What types of conflict may be solved by mediation ?=== | |||
| ===Who are the mediators ?=== | |||
| Mediators are people who are volunteering to get involved in mediating user ].<br> | |||
| They are regular trusted editors, approved by Jimbo and the other members of the commitee, here to help you.<br> | |||
| But they are | |||
| *without any actual power over the final decision, and | |||
| *without any power to vote for or recommend a ban or any other punitive action. | |||
| See ]. | |||
| ===What happen doing mediation ?=== | |||
| You may ask for mediation here (see below), or on the mailing list. You may suggest a name, or the commitee will appoint a mediator to help you. In every case, both parties must agree with the mediator chosen. | |||
| This may be done through various means, like email, irc, phone... What is said during mediation sessions is private, and won't be disclosed without agreement of all parties. In particular it won't be used in any further conflict resolution proceedings (arbitration). You will be able to speak freely and fully. | |||
| Mediation is voluntary. Any settlement reached must be agreeable to both parties. | |||
| From time to time, progress bulletins (if warranted) might be issued. | |||
| ===What happens if mediation fails ?=== | |||
| You may (or the other party may) ], which is the next step in ].<br> | |||
| Keep in mind that mediation is an alternative to having an ] decides your case in the name of the community. I.e., '''another than you''' will decide which title is more NPOV, when content must be kept or deleted, when to ban you etc..., and you won't have the choice !<br> | |||
| It is of your best interest to solve a dispute through mediation rather arbitration, because it is '''you''' (the disputants) who agree '''together''' of a solution. | |||
| ===For more information=== | |||
| You may wish to consult the following introductary link before formally asking for mediation : ] (what is mediation) | |||
| ==Requests for mediation== | |||
| It is always preferable for ''both'' parties to the dispute to request mediation. If possible please agree between you to request mediation before adding a request to this page. However, if you feel unable to approach the other party or feel that a mediator is needed to get an agreement to mediation then please ask. | |||
| It's important that this page should not become a second version of ]. | |||
| === ] + ] === | |||
| On , Robert wrote "I am requesting mediation". I would like to second that request. I trust that mediation will cover the range of conflict between myself and Robert. ] 16:10, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC) | |||
| ===] + ]=== | |||
| *I would like to have mediation to resolve the ongoing disputes between ] and myself (]). Primary realm of conflict is on articles include ], ], ]. - ] 21:39, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC) | |||
| **Hello UrtherSRG. Have you asked ] if he/she would be willing to try mediation yet? -- ] (21 Jan) | |||
| ***Yes indeed. See the very top of ] for the ask and the answer. - ] 19:16, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC) | |||
| ***I do not know what this entails. It is obviously some attempt by UtherSRG to have me banned from Wiki. I am tired of dealing with Uther and he does not seem to desire to let sleeping dogs lie. I am open to mediation, though I do not have a clear understanding of what it entails.] 19:44, 23 Jan 2004 (UTC) | |||
| ===] + ]=== | |||
| *For a second time I place a complaint about ] ] 08:56, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC) | |||
| **Anthere's answer snipped by ] | |||
| ***Comment snipped by Jack himself. ] (sorry, you can read the page history for it, but I no longer wanted to represent myself by what I had said, so I removed it from here] 09:26, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)) | |||
| ****sannse's reply snipped by sannse -- ] 10:21, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC) | |||
| *****LOL. Shall we delete the whole paragraph Jack ? ] | |||
| ******Well, I am still requesting mediation with kenneth.. ] 13:22, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC) | |||
| *******I've left him a further message with a little more explanation of the process. -- ] 18:19, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC) | |||
| ===] + community=== | |||
| *I would like the mediation comittee to see if they can perseude ] to work with myself and many other users on ] and a number of related articles. In any situation where Mr NH has disagreed with anyone else, he starts dishing out insults, listing out names on ] and reverting out work. ] 20:30, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC) | |||
| :Copied from ] | |||
| :''In order to try and sort out the conflicts that you keep having between myself and other users, I've put your's and my name up to the mediation comittee. The idea is that some of the trusted wikimembers who are not particulaly interested in medicine (and are therfore likely to be as unbiased as possible) try to resolve the conflicts. The process is new, but I believe that we both have to agree to undergo the process. I respectfully ask therefore that you go to ] and state wehether you are or are not prepaired to agree to the process. Thank you. ] 20:37, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)'' | |||
| ::Copied from ] | |||
| ::''No, I do not think so. -- ] 04:51, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)'' | |||
| So what happens next ? Will someone else have a go at getting him to agree or do we go straight to arbitration? ] 09:28, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC) | |||
| :Thanks for trying so politely Teresa. ] has approached Mr Natural Health on behalf of the committee at this point. -- ] 10:28, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC) | |||
| ---- | |||
| :I am the second party to this dispute. | |||
| :Let me recap my position. My primary problem is with ] rather than with ], although that also is a problem area. AM is apparently a controversial area as AM has been edited on a daily basis for the short time that I have been here. I feel that this circular editing process is the normal course of business for AM. And, I have accepted that process. I personally have added 13 citations to research studies complete with online hyperlinks either to the public abstract or to the full text of the research study, four hyperlinks to relevant web pages, and one book reference to support the ten general arguments in support of AM. I do not recall the opposition having supported a single one of their claims with a reference. Basically, I was happy with the AM article as it was. And, I was resigned to the fact that others would be continually editing the article making those going in circles changes that I have come to accept as a part of controversy in Misplaced Pages. | |||
| :So, as my last comments regarding ghostwriting in AM were accepted without them being deleted; I started a brand new article called ]. A number of problems developed. Namely it was protected so that I was not in a position to improve this article. So, from my point of view a number of individuals, including ] were basically harassing me. So, I started working with theresa knot on the talk page. Over the weekend, I completed my documentation of my position on MS in ]. | |||
| :::As the sysop who protected ], I would like to note that I did this precisely because there was a reversion war going on between you and several others. In other words, the article was not improved at all because it was used as a theatre for hostilities. You and everybody else are temporarily not in a position to improve it because you resorted to hostilities instead of cooperating. You can and should work on the article by discussing your position in talk pages, and when there is a consensus the protection will be lifted. The better your cooperation, the better your chances of having your views adequately represented. ] 15:53, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC) | |||
| :So, I returned to the AM article on Monday and found that ] had been playing dirty with ], to-wit: | |||
| ::David added Off-topic POV comments in the research design sub-section, declared that there was an edit war, and then had ] protected. Those off-topic comments were written by a third party. They are off topic because I had writen in page history, the subject of that sub-section was clearly research design concerns. Therefore, any additions or changes have to be written from a medical study research design perspective. They were not, nor did I believe that they could be restructured due to their POV content, so I 100% deleted that one small paragraph for the 2nd time. This is standard operating procedure as most of all my edits have been repeatedly deleted 100%. | |||
| :::The precise comments added by Daivid were:'''''"Some alternative medicine techniques are closely tied to religious or philosophical beliefs. Practitioners of these techniques may resist scientific scrutiny, fearing that negative experimental results will be used to question these underlying beliefs."''''' | |||
| ::From my point of view, there was no edit war because nobody was repeatedly making 100% restorations of two radically different versions of the AM article. In fact, nobody had been editing it at all. Certainly, not me as I was busy with ]. | |||
| :So, my primary beef is now with David Gerard rather than with theresa knott. But, certainly quite a few individuals have step forward to harass me in my efforts to improve the articles that I have been editing. I am also extremely annoyed at people moving my comments. I put my comments where I wanted them for a reason. In the latest move, they said that they moved my ] conflicts, but they clearly added a lot of material from elsewhere which was not from my listed conflicts. Further, they put my conflicts on the very bottom of this page so that visitors would first have to page to through a lot of unrelated garbage to see my list of conflicts. | |||
| :This is what I call harassment. | |||
| :As far as me dishing out insults, I feel that those people are overly sensitive especially in light of the dirty tactics being employed by these very same people. -- ] 04:53, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC) | |||
| ::Mr-Natural-Health's characterisation of events is not quite what happened - have a look at the page's , and particularly the comments for edits. The insert above was written by someone else and cleared by Mr-Natural-Health with the comment ''"(Any characterizing AM of techniques is POV. If you cannot frame your comments in English as a research design concern then they are out of place in this section. Therefore, 100% deletion is in order)"''. My single edit to the article was to revert it. I asked for protection of the page because it was pretty clearly an edit war. | |||
| ::Mr-Natural-Health is writing articles on topics that certainly warrant articles. Unfortunately, he appears to have a proprietary attitude to articles he started, and trouble accepting edits from others. See also ] and ]. - ] 09:17, Jan 22, 2004 (UTC) | |||
| ::Note that while it is true that ''"AM is apparently a controversial area as AM has been edited on a daily basis for the short time that I have been here"'', the shows that the editing every day only started when Mr-Natural-Health started participating. - ] 16:35, Jan 22, 2004 (UTC) | |||
| Mr-Natural-Health, Would you consider mediation of these matters? ] 06:45, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC) | |||
| :From an edit summary on this page by Mr-Natural-Health: "I agree to arbitration in Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation" -- ] 11:06, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC) | |||
| ::That's very good news. To the mediation committee - what happens next? Will someone contact me? Or should I should I approach someone from the committee? To Mr Natural Health - I 'm sorry that you feel you are being harassed. I can't speak for anyone else but it certainly was not my intention to harass you, or cause you to feel unwelcome. My interest is the same as yours. I want to improve the article. The thing is, from my POV you have taken a combatant stance. You appear to me to view the articles you edit as ''belonging to you'' rather than the community, and take any change as a personal criticism. You also tend to lump everyone together as your enemy and call them "medical scientenists" (or some such thing - I'm not sure of the spelling) this has led you to be very rude to people. It's no good saying that they are oversensitive as an excuse. ] 14:11, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC) | |||
| :::As far as this ownership nonsense goes, I do not engage in that anymore than the next person does who periodically checks up on the current status of their past edits. Considering the volatility of ] this is a requirement unless you want RK to delete all your improvements. | |||
| :::I consider answering these mickey mouse kinds of comments a total waste of my time. -- ] 14:54, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC) | |||
| :::In articles like alternative medicine there is the PRO and the CON side. I am clearly part of the PRO alternative medicine people. And, the CON side is clearly populated by the ] people. From your prior biased comments in numerous places you clearly are '''not''' neutral in your position on alternative mediciene. -- ] 14:59, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I accept that ''I'' am not neutral. ''I'' don't have to be neutral - only the article does. If ''you'' were to work with people like me instead of calling me names we could write a really great article that presented both sides and allowed the reader to form their own opinion. However so far you have been unable to work with anyone. You insist that only your opinion counts. ] 15:13, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Do, you agree to or accept my proposal? | |||
| :::::If yes, shall I write the first draft of neutral text or you? | |||
| :::::Or, are we supposed to wait for a neutral mediator? | |||
| :::::-- ] 00:49, 23 Jan 2004 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: I accept your proposal on one condition. That whilst I work with you and a mediator you remain polite and cooperative with me. By this I mean you do not shout (Use all caps) you do not insult me, you do not list me on conflicts between users, and you do not put unpleasant remarks in the summary box. I you will not agree to this then I can't work with you. ] 09:45, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC) | |||
| A wiseman once wrote: "I originally declined because of my perception that it would only be another structured way to waste more of my limited time. On my mailing list and website, I can actually get work done. In this place, everyone is editing the same stuff over and over again in a never ending circle." Perhaps, I should follow his advice? -- ] 13:31, 24 Jan 2004 (UTC) | |||
| :Have you looked at ? They have a policy of sympathetic views - ''"A major innovation, especially with regard to controversial subjects, is the policy of sympathetic point of view."'' - ] 18:05, Jan 24, 2004 (UTC) | |||
| ::About the end of my 2nd week here, someone suggested to me Wikinfo. From a legal viewpoint, I won the arbitration. I responded and the loyal opposition defaulted. Ergo, I won. -- ] 19:06, 24 Jan 2004 (UTC) | |||
| :: The arbitration committee is in the process of being set up. If you continue with your abusive behaviour they will deal with you in time. The best way to 'win' is to stop being hostile and rude to other editors and work with us. Thay way everyone wins. If you continue making personal attacks, sooner or later you will be banned. ] 09:45, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC) | |||
| :::So, you do frequent this place on weekends after all? | |||
| :::There are only two choices here. Either you will accept my proposal, or a similar one within in a day or two, or I will resume my normal editing stance. If you agree to work with me on a neutral version of ], then my communications will be impersonal, short, and to the point. But, if you people attempt to waste any more of my time then you can expect to see more of what you falsely characterize as being hostile and rude to other editors. The choice is entirely yours. | |||
| :::One thing is for sure. We are not going to mediate my behavior. It is either work on an article or the entire mediation process is off, as far as I am concerned. And, I will then resume my normal editing stance of improving other articles. | |||
| :::--] 16:03, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC) | |||
| ----- | |||
| ===Progress Bulletins=== | |||
| * ] has withdrawn requests for mediation with ]. | |||
| * ] has agreed to facilitate initial discussions between ] & ] on unspecified issues. | |||
| ** But neither side has approached anyone on the committee with specifics or with offers to accept mediation, so I guess it's not going to happen. ] 17:04, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC) | |||
| *Mister Natural Health has declined mediation with Theresa Knott (on behalf the wikipedia community), that case has been forwarded to the consideration of the arbitration committee. | |||
| *Mister Natural Health has however indicated he wishes to pursue mediation on a separate issue. Cimon Avaro requested clarification on the question of who this other dispute is with from Mister Natural Health. -- ] 04:02, Jan 23, 2004 (UTC) | |||
| ------ | |||
| see also ] for info | |||
Latest revision as of 19:35, 12 November 2018
Redirect to: