| Revision as of 17:32, 5 June 2006 editPudgenet (talk | contribs)497 edits →Objections/clarifications← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 06:58, 5 August 2021 edit undoMalnadachBot (talk | contribs)11,637,095 editsm Fixed Lint errors in signatures. (Task 2)Tag: AWB | ||
| (36 intermediate revisions by 11 users not shown) | |||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
| # Any subsection of the article under mediation cannot be edited directly, unless I otherwise indicate. I will perform the edits. My edits to the main article are never reverted. Reverting or undoing an edit of mine will result in either a warning or a block. Repeated violations will result in a ban from editing the Perl article for the duration of the mediation process. | # Any subsection of the article under mediation cannot be edited directly, unless I otherwise indicate. I will perform the edits. My edits to the main article are never reverted. Reverting or undoing an edit of mine will result in either a warning or a block. Repeated violations will result in a ban from editing the Perl article for the duration of the mediation process. | ||
| # {{user|Durin}} will be my administrative supervisor, if at any point you consider my actions either grossly unfair or immoral you may appeal to him. You may not under any circumstances take direct action to reverse my actions. | # {{user|Durin}} will be my administrative supervisor, if at any point you consider my actions either grossly unfair or immoral you may appeal to him. You may not under any circumstances take direct action to reverse my actions. | ||
| # Mediation participants cannot complain about one another's behavior. I will take care of all disciplinary problems. They are free to disagree about content written by another editor in a respectful manner. | |||
| ⚫ | : ] |
||
| # In the beginnign editors will talk to me, I'll be mediating the conversation as well as the content. As time progresses I will move further and further away from controlling the debate. | |||
| ⚫ | : ]] 13:00, 5 June 2006 (UTC) | ||
| == Participants == | == Participants == | ||
| Line 14: | Line 16: | ||
| *] | *] | ||
| *] | *] | ||
| *] | *] - yes | ||
| * ] - we pretty much had concensus before, but the mediator didn't like it. I'd like to respectfully request another mediator. | * ] - we pretty much had concensus before, but the mediator didn't like it. I'd like to respectfully request another mediator. | ||
| * ] | * ] - no | ||
| * ] | * ] - Will try to be involved but agree with others that this seems to be tail chasing. | ||
| * ] | * ] - Would like to be involved | ||
| * ] - I want to be involved. | * ] - I want to be involved. | ||
| * ] - I will follow the debate but don't have any technical expertise to contribute. | |||
| * ] – I'm here to help solve the problem. | |||
| : Mediation is over. The , as has, for the most part, the . -- ] 21:29, 13 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Objections/clarifications == | == Objections/clarifications == | ||
| Here is a place to discuss objections and request clarifications to the ground rules above. ] |
Here is a place to discuss objections and request clarifications to the ground rules above. ]] 12:58, 5 June 2006 (UTC) | ||
| Objections to the whole process or me personally should be taken to ] | |||
| : Mediation is not binding. We have no obligation to honor whatever YOU decide ("The acceptance of a mediation does not necessarily entail for the parties the obligation to abide by the agreements that the mediator will propose," and "a mediator may only suggest, rather than impose, a contract"). And if your decision goes against consensus, it will not be honored. It's that simple. ] is about reaching consensus through suggestions, and you have been, instead, dictating against consensus. You are in complete and total violation of what mediation is. You even violated one of the most important principles of mediation ("Mediators will not take sides or promote one person's point of view or request over those of another person") when you said that popularity should be included. You can threaten all you want, but it won't make you any more right, as you are the one violating Misplaced Pages's own mediation guidelines, and your word. ] 15:37, 5 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ⚫ | ===reply to Scarpia=== | ||
| :: I suggest you tone it down a bit. And while I can't impose any rulings on the participants of the mediation I can enforce their agreements. So if an agreement is reached, yes I can force others to abide by it. Moreover, I don't make decisions and anywhere there is consensus I can't get involved. Now lets be clear where a bunch of people think X and a few people (or even one) think Y that ain't a consensus. That's a disagreement and that does open the door. | |||
| ⚫ | Scarpia - ''we pretty much had concensus before, but the mediator didn't like it. I'd like to respectfully request another mediator.'' | ||
| :: Durin has specifically warned about your interpretation of consensus, as amount to a ban. I agree 100% with what he said. ]<sup><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></sup> 16:53, 5 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ⚫ | Reasonable request, here is the proper procedure. | ||
| ⚫ | # I can be replaced by any member of the mediation committee (which is the policy for escalation of mediation). Basically you file an application and if they accept the case I'm out. | ||
| ⚫ | # Alternately you can ask Durin to dismiss me for for cause (I'm assuming either incompetence or bias is the charge), in which case it remains with the cabal but not with me. | ||
| ⚫ | However, while you are unlikely to believe me, given Durin's previous intervention, my comments and Simetrical comments on the RFC its unlikely this objection regarding consensus is going to be accepted. You have had 3 experienced and independent people with no history of intervention on Perl indicate they were unhappy with the consensus you all had established. "Upper management" is not going to want to reestablish this consensus. However, success will be almost impossible unless you do this as a team. Moreover it can take a month or more for a mediation committee member to be assigned even if the case is accepted which is going to take a long time without clarity. If you would like I can set up a page for you to discuss with the rest of the pro Perl group whether they want to move for a replacement and if so which of the two methods they would like to use. Let me know. ]] 17:16, 5 June 2006 (UTC) | ||
| ::: I suggest you stop violating your own rules and going back on your own word. You locked the page because we would not agree to follow you; since when is that part of the mediator's authority? And you are simply lying when you said "I don't make decisions." You explicitly did precisely that. you say "we have consensus!" even though, in truth, only one person (Steve_p) agreed, and there was an entire discussion where other people continued to disagree. And , you went and advocated the decision. So you went against consensus by pretending it was there when it was not, you made a decision based on that, after you -- violating ] -- advocated that position. | |||
| ===Reply to Barry=== | |||
| ::: Clearly, if mediation is to continue, a new mediator is needed. But since this is one man against consensus, I see no need for mediation to begin with. It's caused far more problems than ever existed previously. | |||
| In addition, I believe he should have been banned for other things. Therefore, I support the deletion of his posts to this page and I suggest he find another outlet for his complaints. ] 20:21, 5 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Barry. I've added another rule to address this issue. ]] 20:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::: And Durin did not specifically warn me about anything having to do with consensus, that I recall. I was "warned" about "interfering" with mediation, but unfortunately for the two of you, as the title of this section proves beyond any reasonable doubt, objecting to the mediation process is a part of the mediation process (unless you are being dishonest about that, too). You can disagree if you choose, but you are incorrect. It is perfectly within my rights to object to the process, and to your participation in it, from within the process. | |||
| ===Durin=== | |||
| ::: I notice only one person has so far agreed to participate; given your complete lack of objectivity, your dishonesty, and your refusal to adhere to the principles of ], I suggest no one else agree. ] 17:32, 5 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Durin's role must be clarified here. Not even he understands what it is. Perhaps you should comment that part out until you two can come to agreement, and then make it clear to everyone else? | |||
| : As to my own involvement, I reject, categorically, the false statement by Durin that "interference with the mediation process is a form of trolling," if he means by that, arguing against the use of mediation, and arguing that the mediator is a terrible one. Those are perfectly valid parts of the mediation process, despite Durin's or Jbolden's assertions to the contrary. I am uninterested in mediation here, because "one person against consensus" does not demonstrate a need for mediation. I reject the use of mediation here, and I reject any proposals from the mediator that go against consensus, as is my right to do. And I am allowed to voice those concerns as a part of the mediation process. Mediation without opportunity to question the process is not mediation. ] 15:45, 5 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *My role in terms of what Jbolden1517 is expecting of me has been clarified to my satisfaction. My role in terms of what I wish or will do here will not be restricted; I'll take what actions I deem appropriate. --] 21:26, 6 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :*Since you reject the mediation process in this case, the next step would be ]. Voicing concerns about the mediation process is not trolling. Intentionally interfering in the process is disruptive and not welcome. That was my intent. You are free and welcome to question the mediation process. You are not free and welcome to disrupt it. --] 17:26, 5 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ===Page Locking=== | |||
| :: False. The next step is for everyone to simply ignore the mediation process, as it is not binding and it is proven to be a failure, and go back to simply removing Barry's bad edits by consensus, but with a more careful eye to proper documentation of his bad edits. As to interfering as you've described, I have not done that, or anything like it, so obviously jbolden was speaking way out of turn when he said you warned me: more evidence he is unfit to mediate this "dispute" (which, again, requires no mediation). ] 17:32, 5 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| You should point to the Misplaced Pages document that gives you the authority to effectively force mediation by locking the page, and explain how this does not conflict with the principle that mediation is voluntary. | |||
| ⚫ | ===reply to Scarpia=== | ||
| ⚫ | Scarpia - ''we pretty much had concensus before, but the mediator didn't like it. I'd like to respectfully request another mediator.'' | ||
| :scapia in answer to your question: | |||
| ⚫ | Reasonable request, here is the proper procedure. | ||
| : ] | |||
| ⚫ | # I can be replaced by any member of the mediation committee (which is the policy for escalation of mediation). Basically you file an application and if |
||
| :* Enforcing a "cool down" period to stop an "edit war," upon request. | |||
| ⚫ | # Alternately you can ask Durin to dismiss me for for cause (I'm assuming either incompetence or bias is the charge), in which case it remains with the cabal but not with me. | ||
| : In answer to your other questions. Yes this kind of active intervention in an environment of extreme hostility and personal attacks does involve ''censorship''. | |||
| : ] | |||
| : ]] 03:33, 8 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ===New mediation page?=== | |||
| Will further mediation take place ] or on a new page? If on a new page, then maybe that old mediation page should be locked along with the original mediation page. Steve posted to Talk:Perl_Mediation just now and I don't know whether he's in violation of your new rules or whether I can respond. ] 17:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Neither. I'll be creating topic pages. That's why I've started what amounts to a mediation directory structure. The old page will be "archive 1" very shortly. But this is the first topic to mediate, ground rules, policy and who is involved. As for that discussion everyone seems to be acting civilly and in good faith. Big problem is Steve hasn't joined in yet. ]] 00:31, 7 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ⚫ | However, while you are unlikely to believe me, given Durin's previous intervention, my comments and Simetrical comments on the RFC its unlikely this objection regarding consensus is going to be accepted. You have had 3 experienced and independent people with no history of intervention on Perl indicate they were unhappy with the consensus you all had established. "Upper management" is not going to want to reestablish this consensus. However, success will be almost impossible unless you do this as a team. Moreover it can take a month or more for a mediation committee member to be assigned even if the case is accepted which is going to take a long time without clarity. If you would like I can set up a page for you to discuss with the rest of the pro Perl group whether they want to move for a replacement and if so which of the two methods they would like to use. Let me know. ] |
||
Latest revision as of 06:58, 5 August 2021
Mediation with a stick
My last attempt at mediation failed, primarily because people were not willing to participate in mediation nor to honor the outcomes of mediation. I am not here as an editor and I am not going to join in the battle, I’m here to resolve the battle and help you all to create a great Perl article. That is an article that describes Perl in a way that is accurate, informative and neutral in its point of view. Because of previous non cooperation this requires a partial escalation. This article is now under a mediation process and the ground rules under which it is administrated will change.
- I will establish mediation discussions on subsection of the article. Only people participating in the mediation process can have input on those areas of the article. They can still however edit other areas of the article. That is it is not mandatory that you participate but if you don't participate you waive your rights to have input on sections put under mediation. As mediation progress this may become a larger and larger percentage of the article.
- Any subsection of the article under mediation cannot be edited directly, unless I otherwise indicate. I will perform the edits. My edits to the main article are never reverted. Reverting or undoing an edit of mine will result in either a warning or a block. Repeated violations will result in a ban from editing the Perl article for the duration of the mediation process.
- Durin (talk · contribs) will be my administrative supervisor, if at any point you consider my actions either grossly unfair or immoral you may appeal to him. You may not under any circumstances take direct action to reverse my actions.
- Mediation participants cannot complain about one another's behavior. I will take care of all disciplinary problems. They are free to disagree about content written by another editor in a respectful manner.
- In the beginnign editors will talk to me, I'll be mediating the conversation as well as the content. As time progresses I will move further and further away from controlling the debate.
Participants
Please indicate next to your name whether you would like to be involved or not. If you are not on the list and would like to be please add yourself.
- Harmil
- Imroy
- Steve p - yes
- Scarpia - we pretty much had concensus before, but the mediator didn't like it. I'd like to respectfully request another mediator.
- Pudge - no
- RevRagnarok - Will try to be involved but agree with others that this seems to be tail chasing.
- -Barry- - Would like to be involved
- User:Swmcd - I want to be involved.
- User:Ideogram - I will follow the debate but don't have any technical expertise to contribute.
- Eric R. Meyers – I'm here to help solve the problem.
- Mediation is over. The mediator has left Misplaced Pages, as has, for the most part, the main person the mediation was respecting. -- Pudge 21:29, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Objections/clarifications
Here is a place to discuss objections and request clarifications to the ground rules above. jbolden1517 12:58, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Objections to the whole process or me personally should be taken to Talk:Perl Mediation/New Mediator
reply to Scarpia
Scarpia - we pretty much had concensus before, but the mediator didn't like it. I'd like to respectfully request another mediator. Reasonable request, here is the proper procedure.
- I can be replaced by any member of the mediation committee (which is the policy for escalation of mediation). Basically you file an application and if they accept the case I'm out.
- Alternately you can ask Durin to dismiss me for for cause (I'm assuming either incompetence or bias is the charge), in which case it remains with the cabal but not with me.
However, while you are unlikely to believe me, given Durin's previous intervention, my comments and Simetrical comments on the RFC its unlikely this objection regarding consensus is going to be accepted. You have had 3 experienced and independent people with no history of intervention on Perl indicate they were unhappy with the consensus you all had established. "Upper management" is not going to want to reestablish this consensus. However, success will be almost impossible unless you do this as a team. Moreover it can take a month or more for a mediation committee member to be assigned even if the case is accepted which is going to take a long time without clarity. If you would like I can set up a page for you to discuss with the rest of the pro Perl group whether they want to move for a replacement and if so which of the two methods they would like to use. Let me know. jbolden1517 17:16, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Reply to Barry
In addition, I believe he should have been banned for other things. Therefore, I support the deletion of his posts to this page and I suggest he find another outlet for his complaints. -Barry- 20:21, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
- Barry. I've added another rule to address this issue. jbolden1517 20:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Durin
Durin's role must be clarified here. Not even he understands what it is. Perhaps you should comment that part out until you two can come to agreement, and then make it clear to everyone else?
- My role in terms of what Jbolden1517 is expecting of me has been clarified to my satisfaction. My role in terms of what I wish or will do here will not be restricted; I'll take what actions I deem appropriate. --Durin 21:26, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Page Locking
You should point to the Misplaced Pages document that gives you the authority to effectively force mediation by locking the page, and explain how this does not conflict with the principle that mediation is voluntary.
- scapia in answer to your question:
- Misplaced Pages:Protection_policy#A_temporary_protection_is_used_for:
- Enforcing a "cool down" period to stop an "edit war," upon request.
- In answer to your other questions. Yes this kind of active intervention in an environment of extreme hostility and personal attacks does involve censorship.
- ]
- jbolden1517 03:33, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
New mediation page?
Will further mediation take place here or on a new page? If on a new page, then maybe that old mediation page should be locked along with the original mediation page. Steve posted to Talk:Perl_Mediation just now and I don't know whether he's in violation of your new rules or whether I can respond. -Barry- 17:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Neither. I'll be creating topic pages. That's why I've started what amounts to a mediation directory structure. The old page will be "archive 1" very shortly. But this is the first topic to mediate, ground rules, policy and who is involved. As for that discussion everyone seems to be acting civilly and in good faith. Big problem is Steve hasn't joined in yet. jbolden1517 00:31, 7 June 2006 (UTC)