| Revision as of 15:45, 5 June 2006 editPudgenet (talk | contribs)497 edits →Objections/clarifications← Previous edit | Revision as of 16:14, 5 June 2006 edit undoScarpia (talk | contribs)82 edits →Participants: - let's start with another mediatorNext edit → | ||
| Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
| *] | *] | ||
| *] | *] | ||
| * ] - we pretty much had concensus before, but the mediator didn't like it. I'd like to respectfully request another mediator. | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | * ] | ||
| * ] | * ] | ||
Revision as of 16:14, 5 June 2006
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.
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
- Scarpia - we pretty much had concensus before, but the mediator didn't like it. I'd like to respectfully request another mediator.
- Pudge
- RevRagnarok
- -Barry-
- User:Swmcd - I want to be involved.
Objections/clarifications
Here is a place to discuss objections and request clarifications to the ground rules above. jbolden1517 12:58, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
- 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. Misplaced Pages:Mediation 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. Pudge 15:37, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
- 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. Pudge 15:45, 5 June 2006 (UTC)