Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:21, 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.

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.

jbolden1517 13:00, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

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 - 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.

Objections/clarifications

Here is a place to discuss objections and request clarifications to the ground rules above. jbolden1517 12:58, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

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.

1. 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.
2. 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)

Unbelievable. Is any more evidence of jbolden's unfitness to mediate needed, than his censorship of a perfectly legitimate objection, placed where it belongs, in the objections section? I add clear and concinving evidence of jbolden's violations of mediation policy, and he responds by removing everything.

jbolden, for your own sake, I suggest you just back off from this "mediation" now, because that was a terrible error of judgment on your part. I followed the rules, I objected appropriately, I cited official Misplaced Pages policy, and you just didn't like what I had to say, so you removed it. And that is on top of you violating Misplaced Pages mediation policy by making decisions, advocating positions, and dictating consensus (which I provided evidence of, right before you removed it). No one can reasonably have any faith in this process any longer, with you leading it. Pudge 18:15, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

And instead of simply reverting and calling me a troll, you could instead show your good faith, if you have any, by saying precisely why what I am posting here is not allowed. As best I can tell, you are clearly stepping over the line, way over the line. Pudge 18:47, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

The reverted comments by Pudge included the "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." That demonstrates fundamental opposition to mediation of this matter, not just opposition to this particular mediator or the ground rules. While it's true that "Here is a place to discuss objections and request clarifications to the ground rules above," Pudge's problem can't be resolved no matter what change in rules is made.

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)