| Revision as of 14:37, 25 June 2006 editJbolden1517 (talk | contribs)5,334 editsm reply to francis← Previous edit | Revision as of 15:19, 25 June 2006 edit undoKim Bruning (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers20,995 edits +archiveNext edit → | ||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
| * ] | * ] | ||
| * ] | * ] | ||
| * ] | |||
| * | |||
| * <!--]--> | * <!--]--> | ||
| * | * | ||
| |}<!--Template:Archivebox--> | |}<!--Template:Archivebox--> | ||
| == Restructuring submission process == | |||
| {{tl|medcab2}} could be redesigned to invite the disputants of a debate to present compromise offers before a mediator is assigned to the case. I think the compromise section of the current template is a good start. As a result disputants in trivial cases would be encouraged to solve their problem on their own, possibly with some helpful comments from outsiders (e.g. mediators). An invitation template, to be posted on the talk pages of disputants by case | |||
| submitters, could invite disputants specifically to submit compromise offers to the mediation case. Cases could be kept in this stage for one week and only be admitted to mediation with a dedicated mediator afterwards. --] 15:09, 30 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : *scratching head* Ok... we're kinda drifting away from the whole cabal concept though. Hmmm, maybe we can rename mediation cabal to mediation mkII or... no, there has to be a better name... Oh and in any case, be darn careful of adding too much process. You can tie yourself in knots, and then I'd have to find some folks and think up a mediation mkIII ;-) For everything you add, see if you can take something else away. The objective is to keep the medcab pages as short and simple as possible. (Which, looking at it, isn't really happening much atm :-/ ) ] 11:34, 1 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Okay, here is a proposal for simplicity: We could drop the assignment of mediators altogether and stop tracking the state of a mediation. All cases would be submitted to the list as before, stay for one month (or until removed by the participants) and then be moved to the archive. All cases would start with an open discussion where all disputants are invited to submit compromise offers or discuss the case. Cabal Mediators and everybody else could be invited to join the discussion and, should a mediator be necessary, the participants of the discussion could elect one or more mediators from the neutral participants. This could be one or more Cabal mediators or anybody else willing to help. The decision process and the assignment would be tracked in a Mediator section of the case form. The decision process could remain open and any disputant would be able to withdraw ] support at any time. Cases where the disputants cannot agree on any person to mediate would not fulfill the requirement to have attempted other means of dispute resolution as required by ] and ]. To be eligible to vote for the mediator a disputant would have to add ] as a disputant to the case form (not in the list of disputants as submitted by the original submitter but in the voting section). To invite people to a case disputants could add their case to ] but cases could be removed in a ], not when the state of a case changes. --] 09:43, 3 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Why is this easier? | |||
| * The administrative work is less. (No need to track cases in the list or assign mediators) | |||
| * Cases do not need a mediator. | |||
| * Disputants have to take their cases seriously and agree on a mediator; they cannot expect to have their problems solved by others without contributing to the solution. | |||
| --] 09:43, 3 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| === Swarming discussion === | |||
| :This seems like too harsh of a plan. What if someone's case gets overlooked as has happened far too often in the past? Will it simply get archived with a 'Nope, sorry, no one came. Now go away?' There will inevitably need to be some sort of organization process and I have no qualms with helping with the janitor work. | |||
| :However, what I '''do''' agree with is dropping the assignment of mediators. It is too unreliable and often resorts to cases getting ignored. While there are plus sides to it, such as provoking people into mediating other cases (I was first brought here because I was assigned to a case), there are too many downsides to it. ]<sup><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></sup> 19:08, 3 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :: It can be much simpler. Just have everyone who is willing to mediate and is free converge on a mediation. You should have an idea which tasks are required (evidence gathering, talking with disputants, witnesses, what have you, finding common ground, finding backrounds, searching talk histories... etc) . So, if you see an open case, do one, or a couple of the required tasks, and let other folks do other tasks. Do the ones you think are fun even. Just like no one "owns" a wikipage, why should we have a rule that says only one person can "own" a mediation? :-) Other than that I think the mediation cabal is working, right? :-) Anyway, you can try this way of working right now, what's stopping you? ] 20:19, 3 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::From what I've heard this is just what the mediation cabal used to be: a swarming phenomenon that went off into random cases to work things together as a whole. It seems times have changed, though. ]<sup><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></sup> 21:27, 3 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::: Wow, that sounds so cool: "times have changed". Sooooo, is that what's stopping you from trying this method out *today*, *right now*? If not, what is? ] 11:18, 4 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::: There may be a good reason for a single person dedicated to mediate a given case. Some cases may not need this (I'd call these trivial cases) but when a case is sufficiently complicated helpful comments from a changing crowd may not be enough. My proposal contained an election for the mediator to make sure the disputants show willingness to solve the problem before they get a mediator. Getting people there, to recognize their case is trivial or to elect a mediator, is something that can be accomplished by a changing crowd. --] 17:21, 4 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::: The complexity of cases the mediation cabal has been able to handle has been going down, rather than up. (Some of the first cases were snarfed from the arbcom even ;-) ), otoh, maybe it's also because the medcab seems to have retooled for quantity. .... hmmm :-) It'd be interesting to study on what things have changed , and how they have improved or hurt the ability to mediate :-) (both in quantity and in quality). I think we'd learn lots of interesting things, in both directions! ] 13:45, 5 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: How did you measure that ''the complexity of cases the mediation cabal has been able to handle has been going down''? --] 09:15, 6 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: How many arbcom cases have you snarfed this month? ;-) ] 11:01, 13 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : What's wrong with the system that is sort of developing. Cases get submitted and mediators assign themselves to cases. That seems to be working pretty well. ]<sup><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></sup> 03:31, 6 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :: If the disputants of a case have to agree on their mediator you get them to cooperate at least on that first step. That may save the mediator some work and may entirely solve some of the trivial cases. A possible scenario would be, for example, that a page is protected from editing and the disputants have to agree on a mediator before they can go back to editing. If they can't agree on a mediator at all they don't make any progress; that might be instructive. --] 09:15, 6 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::: That might take a stretch of the existing page protection policy? What if it's over several articles and no one ''warrents'' protection when looked at by itself? And doesn't that go pretty strongly against the "we're just here to listen, no enforcement, etc." feel-good talk on the front page? - ]<span class="plainlinks"> </span> 13:58, 15 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| === Informal tracking === | |||
| Ok, how about a half-way point: No ose is "assigned" but if someone has "look" or contributes they make a chalk mark? Check the tally board, if something hasn't been chalked then don't ignore it. - ]<span class="plainlinks"> </span> 13:58, 15 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Obligations == | |||
| I'm aiming this at active mediators. | |||
| What do you all think about changing the template to include an obligations section for the person who requests mediation? In several cases I find the person requesting mediation is often just looking for more of a quicky no work solution to a dispute rather then entering into a complex mediation. I'd like to include some language like: | |||
| : ''Mediation is a very effective process for dispute resolution. However it is labor intensive. By asking for mediation you should understand that your time commitment is likely to increase during the period of mediation.'' | |||
| Any thoughts? ] 01:59, 7 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Adding a comment like this to the template might scare off users as well. We are an informal mediation process, and as such we should be flexible in our ways of helping people with issues. Many times I have had to refer people to other places because they are looking for general help instead of a mediation request, but if they come here for help I don't see why we shouldn't help them. Unless we suddenly become a strict group that harshly deals with requests that aren't suited for mediation, I don't see why we should scare people off. ]<sup><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></sup> 02:06, 7 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :: Mediation doesn't have to require a lot of time from the submitter. The wording is misleading the way it is. The disputants in a mediation case have as much time to respond as they require. --] 09:05, 7 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Deletion of ]== | |||
| From time to time I happen across ] and always question myself: "Why is this here?" This list is rarely kept up to date and it adds unecessary added confusion to keeping track of cases. I am suggesting that the assignment table becomes an orphaned article and that links to it should be removed as it may confuse people new to the Mediation Cabal who use it as a list of assignments as opposed to the actual list at ]. What are people's thoughts on this? ]<sup><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></sup> 23:39, 12 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : Agree. We all go off the main list. ]<sup><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></sup> 00:35, 13 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :: I agree. The idea was to track the assignments of submitters who are willing to mediate a case. The assignment table would have allowed to keep an eye on inexperienced mediators, to track submitters without assignments and to keep track of mediators who had a look at one of the cases (reviewed a case). It isn't particularly useful the way it is being used. --] 13:29, 13 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Well as it appears ] was the only one who made extensive use of this page, I am going to go ahead and remove references to it to avoid any confusion. ]<sup><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></sup> 15:02, 13 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| That was simple! The only link to the assignment table (besides an archive in the coordinator's desk and this talk page) has been removed. Should the table page be put up for deletion, or should we keep it for, uh, posterity's sake? ]<sup><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></sup> 15:07, 13 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :] the thing. If only ] was using it, then no point in even archiving it, imho. <b><i><font color="#FF00FF">~Kylu (]|]) </font></i></b> 04:14, 19 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Formatting of project page == | |||
| The dispute-resolution template was recently edited, and the effects of this adjusted the formatting of the Mediation Cabal project page. The status board used to be directly above the dispute-resolution template and both were along the right side of the page, though now they are beside eachother. I tried aligning them to the right but am having difficulty. If anyone can do this (or whether they prefer the way it looks now) I would appreciate it! ]<sup><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></sup> 17:11, 14 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : Well I got it back as it was (a simple table sufficed) ]. However it infringes on the content further down, what do you reckon? it doesn't actually cover anything up but it loks a little messy --<font color="darkgreen> ]<sup><font colour="DarkBlue"> ]</font></sup></font> 21:29, 24 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Well the section about how to create a case is a tad important, heh. I guess it would be best to just leave it as it is, since the current way the project page is isn't obstructing anything and looks nice and tidy. ]<sup><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></sup> 21:32, 24 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::: I agree, I thought you might say that but I figured it would be best to make sure :D --<font color="darkgreen> ]<sup><font colour="DarkBlue"> ]</font></sup></font> 04:03, 25 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::I made a run at tweaking it in ], though I don't actually know what it looked like before it was broken. I eventually settled for getting rid of the white background and properly centering the Medcab-infobox. I don't know if it suits your fancy, but it at least seems to work in the browsers I tried. Notes: | |||
| ::* I nowiki'd the category for User page purposes | |||
| ::* I snipped a bunch of the content down the page for Preview screen purposes | |||
| ::* I used a modified Medcab-infobox (also ]) that adjusts margins and such | |||
| ::It seems to sidestep the overlap problem and look pretty decent. ] 06:51, 3 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Numbers == | |||
| Does anyone think it might be a good idea to put numbers by cabalists names to show how many | |||
| Cases they have so cabalists assigning cases don't overload other cabalists. ] 21:37, 25 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :If someone is assigned to a case they have the right to refuse to take that case - besides, generally cases are only assigned to people who say they would like to mediate a case on their request for mediation. Lately cases haven't been assigned much lately either, with the serious reduction of the backlog (though it's creeping up again). ]<sup><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></sup> 22:27, 25 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == What does the Coordinator and Deputy Coorindator do? == | |||
| See above for question. 21:37, 25 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : Well, that is a good question. I'm the coordinator of the Mediation Cabal; I don't have a clearly defined role as such, primarily because the Mediation Cabal is designed by nature to be as ''ad hoc'' as possible, but basically I do what my name suggests - act as the overall person who coordinates aspects of the project, and makes sure it is all going smoothly. I'm the recourse to appeal, also; that is, if people aren't happy with the way they've been handled in the Mediation Cabal, I'm the person to sort it out, and I also inspect the mediation work undertaken periodically and check that people know what they're doing. Basically I'm the "overseer", if you will, of the efforts down here, although I don't impose dictatorial control over anything because obviously we're an informal system. With regard to the Deputy Coordinator, basically he's there if I'm eaten by lions, run over by a 'bus, struck by a bolt of lightning, &c. :) Best regards, --] | ] 23:55, 25 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Assignments section wording == | |||
| This doesn't sound right to me: | |||
| <blockquote> | |||
| <p> | |||
| How do I get a mediator assigned to my case? | |||
| </p> | |||
| <p> | |||
| There is no reliable assignment of mediators. You can either wait until somebody else is assigned to your case by a cabalist doing a bit of administrative work or you can do that administrative work yourself. If you submit a case and you are willing to mediate just pick another case from the list where the submitter is willing to mediate and write your signature next to the case. | |||
| </p> | |||
| </blockquote> | |||
| I can speed up the process of getting someone assigned to my case by doing some kind of administrative work? What? How? You mean just mediate my own case? | |||
| I can only mediate a case in which the submitter of the case is willing to mediate a different case? As a thank you on Misplaced Pages's behalf to someone who's willing to help? Can't I mediate a case in which the submitter doesn't want to help? | |||
| I'd reword it myself if I knew for sure what it meant. I didn't read the entire page though. ] 13:20, 26 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : I've taken your case. You are right that the main page description sucks Pretty much there is nothing you can do to speed it up. OTOH its been going pretty fast lately. ]<sup><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></sup> 16:04, 27 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Suggestion for the layout structure == | |||
| ''From ]'' | |||
| Can i suggest a new layout structure for te cases page. Basically having subsection headings for each stage of mediation. eg: new cases, assigned mediator, awaiting mediation and clsoed cases. With this type of structure it would be much easier to see hwat cases need attention (esp which ones have stagnated and have no responses). --<font color="darkgreen> ]<sup><font colour="DarkBlue"> ]</font></sup></font> 11:52, 20 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :In my opinion, the simpler the process, the easier things get done. What I've been trying to do is keep cases without mediators at the very bottom of the last, and those with mediators just get left up top. Closed cases I try to leave for a few days up to a week or so, and then I archive them if no one else has already done so. Adding too many subsections may only confuse matters, though I would at least be in favor of a section of cases with mediators and a section of cases without. Also note that we have an opentasks section at ] that is put on <nowiki>{{opentasks}}</nowiki>, so that can also be used (if updated consistently) to see which cases don't have mediators. ]<sup><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></sup> 02:52, 29 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::I think that was sort of what I had in mind. If there wer 2 sections - cases with mediators and cases without - it would make tihngs easier. Mediators then accepting cases could move them into the 'with' sub-section making your job (seeing as you seem to do all the moving :P ) easier. | |||
| ::Then as you say when it comes to archiving closed cases they can just be removed from the 'with' list. I think 2 subsections as you said would help organise things better without becoming confusing. --<font color="darkgreen> ]<sup><font colour="DarkBlue"> ]</font></sup></font> 03:06, 29 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::I went ahead and added the two sections. I don't expect there will be any fierce resistance to it, so we will see how it goes. ]<sup><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></sup> 18:50, 30 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Archive template == | |||
| I recently moved the archive box and the notice for mediators to sign their cases to the cases page as opposed to the main mediation cabal page. In the past we have found that the archives aren't visible enough. Because the archive consists of a great deal of code that would clutter the page, I put it on a template at ]. If there's any problems, say so here (and ] and fix it if I unknowingly made some huge goof). ]<sup><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></sup> 19:16, 30 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Proposal == | |||
| Who else thinks we should establish a review board of senior mediators to review cases on request and investigate complaints. Also the infamous backlog is creeping up. | |||
| ] 22:53, 31 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :My personal belief is that this would be against the purpose of the Mediation Cabal by giving some mediators a sort of title that makes them 'higher' than other Mediators. It is meant to be an informal process where anyone can jump in and help a matter, and this might discourage would-be mediators from jumping in to a case already in mediation to give a third opinion on the matter. If the Mediation Cabal becomes too formal with a sort of strict hierarchy and ], then the ultimate goal of being a calm, laid-back place to request for help in content disputes is lost. ]<sup><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></sup> 00:10, 1 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Please help! == | |||
| I am new and don't know how to talk to someone neutral about this. Someone (Ardenn) did not like what I wrote about and then looked at my contributions list and started deleting it all. When I tried to say "Lets just deal with the real issue you have a problem with, instead of deleting my other, unrelated articles" then allof a sudden (within 2 minutes) all these other people started randomly agreeing with his deletions. I guess there is no way to prove it, excpet for the fact that it happened in such a short amount of seconds and to just the pages I had worked on, but I looked it up adn it sounds like "sockpuppeting". I don't knwo what to do! I think I need a neutral, outside person to help, but I can't tell who is neutral from the people who also edit those pages, because it might be him! Please help! I don't know what to do and am so upset and never want to use wikipedia again. :( <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]) {{{2|}}}.</small> | |||
| :Hi there! I will respond on your talk page to see if I can help you out. ]<sup><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></sup> 23:17, 31 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::I'll look into the situation as well. Could you give a list of articles which were attacked? ] 23:51, 31 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::The matter is currently being discussed at ] and ]. ]<sup><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></sup> 00:07, 1 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Web 2.0 case == | |||
| I am going to close the Web 2.0 Reference case. Does anyone object? | |||
| The anon who started it put no info down.] 21:00, 1 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I'd have to object. The anonymous IP was unable to properly create the page because IPs can't create pages. I'd give it a day or two to see if the IP comes along and adds to it - I left a note on his or her talk page. ]<sup><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></sup> 21:14, 1 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :thanks, I will let it sit for a couple days] 21:54, 1 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Thanks for keeping me informed, I'll leave this too. --<span style="text-decoration: none;">]]] ]</span> 21:15, 2 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :: Putting that strikeout on the list page is likely to discourage the requester from adding to that specific page. How about removing the strikeout? Have a look at the talk page for Web 2.0 and you will see things are getting rather ugly. --12:21, 3 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Oops, you're right. Thanks for reminding me, I'll go and remove it now. --<span style="text-decoration: none;">]]] ]</span> 12:38, 3 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == irc == | |||
| There is a line under private contact methods ''Find us on the #wikipedia IRC channel on Freenode.'' Do we honor this? Is there anyone here who is a regular on IRC? ]<sup><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></sup> 12:42, 3 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I don't use IRC myself, but perhaps the coordinators are active on it. ]<sup><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></sup> 15:31, 3 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : There *were* people there. And irc is a very effective mediation tool. | |||
| : According to Sannse, a pub is optimal (sit both people down with a pint and talk things over, and you'll see they'll amicably agree to just about anything). Irc is far from that ideal, but is still closer to it than a wiki is :-) | |||
| : ] 15:56, 3 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :: I'm not arguing whether its good or bad. We are just telling people to meet us there and I'm not sure that there is anyone for them to meet. That's what I'm trying to figure out, do we use not not if we should. ]<sup><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></sup> 16:07, 3 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::The Misplaced Pages channel on IRC isn't nearly as civilized as talk pages. It's kind of not suitable for children. I wouldn't recommend it unless there are similar rules created for it to the ones that govern Misplaced Pages and a monitor to enforce them. ] 03:47, 4 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::: Do you think there's a lot of children editing these days? I have some suspicions. ] 10:22, 4 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: You'd be suprised how many of the editors I see in mediation are ummm about 12! Seriously though alot of people have sensibilities that are easily offended. Also to instant nature of IRC meaans disputes can get out of hand and pretty nasty - talk pages are always better. --<font color="darkgreen> ]<sup><font colour="DarkBlue"> ]</font></sup></font> 10:34, 4 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: You've just never heard of sannse's pub rule ;-) (sannse is one of the key people I learnt mediation from). | |||
| :::::: ''"If you could only just get the disputants together in a pub discussing things over a nice cold beer, there wouldn't be such a big deal.""'' <small>(12 yo in .us might try for a root beer instead :-P)</small> | |||
| :::::: IRC isn't quite a pub, but it's the closest we can get to one online, I suppose. | |||
| :::::: In any case I often find that mediation goes more smoothly on irc, as long as you stay on the ball. ] 01:42, 5 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I'm "on" IRC 24/7, although not always at my computer :) IRC is good for talking to individual sides, I wouldn't put both sides in the same channel though... - ] 10:36, 4 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : OK well then I guess still do use irc. ]<sup><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></sup> 12:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==A less structured approach== | |||
| I propose that we eliminate some of the sections included in case reports, things like "evidence" and "compromise offers" really just make things more difficult for the mediator. I suggest we eliminate all of the sections beginning at "mediator response" and going down. The only part of the bottom that would remain would be "discussion". I think this would simplify mediation, and make the whole process less formal (Which, after all, is the entire philosophy of the Mediation Cabal) Any comments? ] <sup>{])</sup> 23:06, 8 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I wholeheartedly agree with you. Some of the sections are distracting and I often find myself deleting them to start with. However - there ''are'' some cases in which the evidence section is useful, though that can easily be added by the Mediator if he or she wishes. Perhaps the template could remain as it is with the exception of those sections being commented out with <nowiki> <!-- and --> </nowiki>, so if there is a need to include them, it's a simple removal of the comment tag. ]<sup><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></sup> 23:51, 8 June 2006 (UTC)<br><br> | |||
| ::Neato idea. I like it. ] <sup>{])</sup> 08:56, 9 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : I can live with that. Most of the sections I don't find useful but OTOH "Mediator comments" is very useful to me. Joebone uses the discussion and evidence sections heavily. I do think the "comments by others" should stay we want a dedicated place for not involved people to toss in comments. Why don't we hold a poll section by section though? We all use the template differently. ]<sup><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></sup> 12:45, 9 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I personally only have use for the "discussion" section. I usually conduct mediation over various talk pages, and then copy a compilation of all the discussions onto the case report at the very end (Although I've yet to actually close a case, since I only created my username a few days ago.). Since people obviously find some of the sections useful, It would be best to keep those useful sections on the template. I also ''really'' like Cowman's idea of using comments to hide the sections until needed. Yes, a poll might be the best choice. -- ] <sup>{])</sup> 13:08, 9 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I was thinking of a <references /> section, myself. Stick all the link URL's in one place, keep the page clean. "Summary" "Discussion" "Mediator Comments" and "Resolution", in order that they're used. What'cha think? <b><i><font color="#FF00FF">~Kylu (]|]) </font></i></b> 03:04, 17 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Request for mediation== | |||
| I would like to make a request for some sort of mediation at the ] article. I have looked for a template to intiate a discussion but could not find one suitable. The issue is basicly about ]. In order to keep the article within Misplaced Pages guidelines, several other articles have been created and are linked together in {{cl|FC Barcelona}}. However an anonymous editor has ignored my suggestions to add contributions to other articles rather then the main article. He has persistently overloaded the page with info that is included in other articles and refuses to engage in any debate or log-in. ] --] 23:41, 8 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Hi there! If you follow the directions ], you can file your request for mediation. Thanks. ]<sup><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></sup> 23:54, 8 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Old list of mediators == | |||
| ] is way out of date. I think we should either AFD or keep it up to date. BTW it is what links from ] which is how I found it. ]<sup><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></sup> 00:39, 13 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Ew, the evidence template apparently links to that list. To save any hassle I will change that link to a redirect to the list of mediators on the main Medcab page and will change the template to go to that as well. ]<sup><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></sup> 00:50, 13 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::There, I changed the evidence template to point people to the list of mediators on the main medcab page, but I forgot you can't redirect to a section of an article. There are very few pages that link here, though, so I will use AWB to change those links to ]. ]<sup><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></sup> 00:54, 13 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Well, so much for that. Apparently the only thing to edit was the template. With the exception of this page, the link should be orphaned. It could be speedied I suppose as an article not in use. ]<sup><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></sup> 01:03, 13 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Removing redlinks == | |||
| Thanks to everyone who's keeping an eye on the redlinks that pop up when people forget to file a case. Just as a reminder and suggestion, when you remove a case, it may be a good idea to put it on your watchlist in case it pops up, and also if it isn't too difficult searching through the history, informing them that the case wasn't filed properly may be a step forward. Thanks. ]<sup><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></sup> 20:09, 13 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Assignment of mediators gone == | |||
| As you'll see by , I removed mention of the assignment table (which was rarely used and has been orphaned) and of assigning mediators. The assignment process has generally a) been abused by people not necessarily experienced enough people assigned to cases and b) outdated, as the backlog is nonexistant. <font color="DarkGreen">]</font><sup>]</sup> 21:30, 15 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Talk page mediation == | |||
| Recently the issue has come up of mediation cabal pages splitting up disputes into a wide-audience consensus-driven discussion to one of one on one talks. Often, pages in which a conflict is occuring are torn apart and redirected to mediation pages, leaving others involved in the dispute left in the dust. | |||
| A possibility to make the mediation process more efficient would be to by default, bring problems that are actually content disputes and issues requiring mediation (not just policy misunderstandings) to the talk pages of articles instead of bringing everything to the case page. Basically, what I'm suggesting is the radical idea that the case page is used for describing the problem and explaining what should be done with it, and then a mediator could clarify what is needed on the case page and go to the talk page of the article in question. This way other people can join in on the discussion so no one is left out. | |||
| What are your thoughts about this? <font color="DarkGreen">]</font><sup>]</sup> 22:04, 15 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Seems logical, as it requires less effort for others to join a discussion, and doesn't restrict them to merely posting a comment. In case of content disputes input can be important. ] 22:53, 15 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : Agreed that's what I do currently and I think its a good idea. I think a good model for this is the RFAr pages which prohibit debate. I'd like Joebone's input though since he is a heavy user of the case page for debate so that we make sure that we consider the other side. ]<sup><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></sup> 14:50, 17 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Indeed, I do that anyways. -- ] <sup>{])</sup> 22:26, 17 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Coordinator, where we stand == | |||
| OK. This is worth starting a discussion on. We had a leadership structure where guy doing the coordination (Cowman109) had no title and the guy in charge of coordination wasn't doing it. I've made Cowman109 coordinator since he's been doing the job (excellently I might add) since Fasten became inactive. I think he's proven he can do the job and he wants it so I see no reason he shouldn't keep doing it. {{user|Kim Bruning}} who is the original founder of medcab is out searching for a new leader (or getting one of the old leaders back). Medcab used to be relative on par with arbcom or medcom and that clearly that isn't the case today. Having medcab for green wikipedians and medcom for more experienced ones would be fine, except that medcom turns down most cases and the RFC process for issues doesn't work well. So we are for most cases any ways the only game in town and we don't have credibility higher up. | |||
| We are avoiding an election right now to give Kim time to see if he can do anything about bring in a heavy hitter (and thus creating a meaningful escalation procedure when we lose control of a case). I'd like to ask everyone if they are OK with this short term game plan. Also if you want to run for coordinator or deputy once we have elections leave a note here. ]<sup><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></sup> 15:02, 17 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : No hierarchies, no elections :-P. You do need a coordinator to make sure things don't fly off the tracks, but that's a position "on the side" guiding things, rather than "on top" directing things. You do already have me at your disposal in case things go wrong, and I can generally wrestle down someone to come assist, when it's needed. | |||
| : I'd like to invite more mediation cabal people to come visit irc. A good staging ground is irc.freenode.net, #wikipedia. You can find medcab members like Kylu and keitei there, as well as several useful wikipedians, who can give you instant advice, feedback, and assistence when required. | |||
| : You can also watch me wrestle down the kind of assistence I just promised, so you can learn to do it for yourself. (teach a man to fish and all that) | |||
| : If a lot of medcab people show up, I'd ask JamesF for an own channel, but that's for later. :-) | |||
| : We need training. The quickest way to do this is to have people teaming up, preferably inexperienced with experienced, so that people can solve situations together, learn to blame the process and not the person, and most importantly to learn from each other. Finally, some of the sneakier tricks of the trade need 2 or 3 people to team up. <innocent look>. | |||
| : No one is stopping you from partnering up with one or two colleagues *right now*. Exchange MSN, skype or irc nicks/addresses. Get your friends involved. Go for it! If you can't find anyone, try mark mediations as "1 mediator on it, anyone else?" instead of "taken". Many people find it quite fun to team up, and fun is one of the reasons why you're on wikipedia, right? | |||
| : Finally, I'll also try to get admin coaching done, so all mediation cabal people who are suitable (which should be most of you) can become an admin. That's pretty important. Please contact me if you'd like to join in, so I can gauge how much interest there is, and I'll muddle out some suitable program, possibly together with Esperanza or some friendly bureaucrats (or both ;-) ). | |||
| : ] 15:28, 17 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Just a side note, while I'm not in #wikipedia all the time, I'm on IRC quite a bit. Just because you don't see me in the channel doesn't mean I'm not around! :D | |||
| ::If you're unfamiliar with IRC, just issue the command /whois kylu (or possibly /whois kylu) to see if I'm about. If I'm online, please feel free to contact me! :D | |||
| ::<b><i><font color="#FF00FF">~Kylu (]|]) </font></i></b> 04:10, 19 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == I need an advocate and help with mediation == | |||
| Greetings, | |||
| I need an advocate who will walk me through the mediation process. | |||
| I am trying to get the following added to the Many Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. Max Tegark is a renown physicist and a PhD profressor of cosmology at MIT. He agrees with my addition. | |||
| I am having problem with an editor by the name of Lethe who follows me around Misplaced Pages reverting all my edits without commentary. | |||
| I have tried reasoning with him on discussion pages, but he refuses to read what I write. | |||
| <small> ''<irrelevant section refactored out. ] 22:12, 17 June 2006 (UTC)>''</small> | |||
| It seems Einstein's main objections with quantum mechanics had more to do with the Copenhagen Interpretation, than with quantum mechanics itself. While MWI does not quite generate the kinds of worlds necessary to justify the anthropic principle, it is a step on the way to Stephen Hawking's No Boundary Proposal and Max Tegmark's All Universe Hypothesis which do justify the anthropic principle. | |||
| ] 18:45, 17 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : Hi Michael. To start with, have you thoroughly read the page ], particulary the section entitled, "Making a request for assistance"? That tells you step by step how to request mediation. <font color="3300FF">] (])</font> 19:37, 17 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::And uh, no offense, but repeating this same explanation to every single person on the list of mediators in addition to the one here is a tad excessive. <font color="DarkGreen">]</font><sup>]</sup> 21:11, 17 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == "Taking" vs "In Mediation" == | |||
| Recently many mediators (myself included) have been using the word "taken" to show that a case is in mediation. However, we do not ] cases. Using the word "taken" would imply that one person is handling it, no one else is needed. However, we are (hopefully) moving into a phase where we can be more community-based. I was going to refactor the case page to change the word taken to something like "in mediation", but that would take a while. Instead, try to avoid the use of that word in the future, as other mediators are encouraged to hop on a case to assist in any way possible as well. Thanks. <font color="DarkGreen">]</font><sup>]</sup> 14:55, 18 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : Cowman can you expand on this a little? This is a big shift in recent policy and I think we need more than a side comment. Right now mediators own their cases. They can ask for help and by in large it is given quickly but generally they remain in control until they drop the case. I love the idea of team mediations become more common and support Kim fully in moving towards this. However, are we really moving to a situation where "the cabal" has responsibility for the case and not any individual? If so: | |||
| :# How do we assure that cases get addressed and not dropped with no particular name associated? | |||
| :# What do we do about cases with long lags? | |||
| :# What do we do about cases where research is being done? | |||
| :# What do we do about cases where lots of the conversation is occurring in email. | |||
| :# How do we as mediators settle differences without discrediting cabal? (the no talking out of school or do we openly debate one another) | |||
| :# If a medcom cases goes to arbcom then who represents us? | |||
| :# What if a participant of a participant's friend joined medcab so as to influence the case? 'I definitely could have seen this happening on my perl or my "You are the man now dog" cases where there strong pre-existing communities organizing externally. '' | |||
| :etc... | |||
| : And all of that assumes every case wants a team. I'll pick an example from one of my cases where I would not welcome assistance, ]. | |||
| :# The case is complicated | |||
| :# The people in this case genuinely hated and mistrusted one another when it started. I've had to work hard to build up rules of communication to allow them to work together. I don't want other people messing with those rules of communication. | |||
| :# I'm getting lots of confidential information in email, that I cannot freely share, which I'm using to organize when I address certain points and how they get addressed. So far this information has been reliable but using non public information is delicate since the article ultimately has to cover public information. | |||
| : This case is going to be a huge success for the medcab when its over. There are about a 1/2 dozen articles that will be improved and new policy regarding how to handle people paid to edit wikipedia may emerge out of it. But if I have to get into a pissing contest with random cabalists then this whole mediation goes down the tubes. | |||
| : I for one think this needs a lot of discussion. This is a very big policy change. ]<sup><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></sup> 15:55, 18 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Well as mediators we are not there to support one side of the argument more so than another. We are there to help those involved come to an agreement. I recently hopped on to a case at ], for example, which at first was declared as failed. The mediator there was clearly overwhelmed, so I jumped in giving my own suggestion about what could be a step to coming to some sort of consensus. | |||
| ::Mediators getting involved in other cases isn't for them to give an opinion of the matter, but to help out if the mediator is experiencing trouble. The thing is, however, that we don't own cases. That would be against official ] policy. Mediators are editors just as everyone else in a dispute is, and mediators should just be recognized as a neutral party working to resolve a dispute. Anyone could go around refactoring comments to remove personal attacks per ], but the problem is when you have a disputant who is arguing for one side of the mediation, removing attacks by the opposing party may be controversial. | |||
| ::Basically, mediators should not be afraid to give suggestions that may improve the situation. Generally, you may have one mediator who would organize the structure for the discussion. If conversation is occuring privately, make note of that. I'm not forcing people to jump into other cases that are already in mediation, just stating that if the mediation is clearly getting nowhere, a suggestion about where to go next would be very helpful. | |||
| ::Does that clear things up a bit? <font color="DarkGreen">]</font><sup>]</sup> 16:31, 18 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Some. It exposes a definite disagreement on the role of mediators. This may turn into a subpage of talk | |||
| ::# I think mediators are not editors on the article they are mediating. For example my rule of thumb is anything the two sides agree to regardless of how dumb stays (though I can make a weak suggestion they reconsider). As an editor I certainly don't feel bound by those rules and just because two parties agree to something doesn't mean I can't edit in. I think it tremendous violation of mediator ethics to act like an editor. We have the 3rd opinion dispute resolution system if people just want another guy to jump in. Mediators have additional restrictions. And to pick myself again, I have 0 cases where the eventual resolution was the one I would have chosen as an editor, and that's because my opinion is irrelevant. | |||
| ::# On the other hand disrupting a mediation process is a charge that get land you before the arb committee (and has in several cases). Disrupting a conversation between two editors doesn't have nearly that kind of effect. | |||
| ::# Mediators can be addressed by people outside the wikipedia community interested in the topic, editors generally aren't so addressed. | |||
| ::# OTRS respects mediated articles and submits to the mediator not the offending editor | |||
| ::# etc... | |||
| ::: AFAIK the only power that medcab doesn't have that medcom does is: | |||
| ::# The power to submit reports to Jimmy Wales in an official capacity | |||
| ::# The ability to impose sanction for non participation | |||
| ::: What's the advantage of self castration? Quite simply our job is to create a consensus where none existed. If at the end of the day there isn't a consensus its a failed mediation. That's far more than just removing personal attacks, its exposing the reason the attacks started in the first place and resolving the underlying issue. I have no objection to mediators being able to request help, nor to group mediation. I have huge problems with the idea that we editors when we take cases. ]<sup><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></sup> 17:08, 18 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Well that's just the thing. The Mediation Cabal is an informal process. We aren't above other people, instead we are simply there to help people come to an agreement. Sure, when discussions are held on the case page there is a stricter structure and a clear notice that mediators have the right to refactor comments, but other than that we have no power. Walking into a mediation case experiencing difficulty and adding a suggestion is not disruption, but a good faith attempt to propel things in a positive direction. | |||
| We are editors because we work towards the same goal - building an encyclopedia. Even though indirectly we are leading others to build the encyclopedia through dispute resolution, we are there for the purpose of the encyclopedia. <font color="DarkGreen">]</font><sup>]</sup> 18:33, 18 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : Do you want to go for the area of agreement. A "right to re-factor" as part of ]? Also what do you think medcom's ], that's a policy that allows for replacement that I can live with. ]<sup><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></sup> 02:37, 19 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I agree with Cowman, we need less of this formal stuff. -- ] <sup>{])</sup> 02:27, 19 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :: And this is based on what? You've done 3 cases so far none of which were complicated. So in the 12 days you've been active in wikipedia what formal procedure got in your way? How would a less formal structure have helped you with your three cases? Oh and what does formal structure have to do with either side of this argument. Please educate me. | |||
| :: If you want to self delete feel free. ]<sup><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></sup> 02:47, 19 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::The right to re-factor is not put into policy anywhere from what I understand. When I refactor unhelpful comments I generally do so in the interest of ] and ]. It is something that anyone could do to move things forward. It's just the fact that the people have a recognized neutral party removing these things show the removals are not an attack, but an attempt to calm things down. | |||
| :::And concerning ], we are not the Mediation Committee. While it is a plus if all sides agree to the presence of a mediator, if someone does not agree, informal mediators are encouraged to mediate with those who are still interested to at least come to some sort of compromise. <font color="DarkGreen">]</font><sup>]</sup> 14:52, 19 June 2006 (UTC)<br> | |||
| ::::Well, before I begin, ]. Now... moving on. | |||
| :::::Regarding your request to explain where the formalness of MedCab even applies to this discussion: | |||
| :::::<blockquote>''Well that's just the thing. The Mediation Cabal is an informal process. We aren't above other people, instead we are simply there to help people come to an agreement. Sure, when discussions are held on the case page there is a stricter structure and a clear notice that mediators have the right to refactor comments, but other than that we have no power.''</blockquote> | |||
| :::::Pretty much every part of that quote involves some sort formalness/strictness, so it's obviously not a factor oblivious to this discussion. | |||
| ::::::Now, onto your second request, which inquired how formalities have hindered my mediation. They haven't. I've pretty much ignored anything that would get in the way of my style of mediation. (Needless case page sections, handling discussions on the case page itself, etc) So, it's not really a problem that is impeding me... because I've totally ignored it. Thank you for your time. -- ] <sup>{])</sup> 18:13, 19 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I have to comment that Cowman's notion troubles me a bit. While it is correct that mediators are not above any editor, there is some degree of credibility automatically lent to the mediator since they have volunteered to take responsibility for something. The mediation process (not just here - anywhere) depends on the concept of balance; that is to say, the mediator attempts to achieve balance where there is none. While in that process, any external element introduced to the equation can disrupt the progress toward balance. | |||
| I do not think it is appropriate for another mediator to introduce themself into a case unbidden. If the current mediator requests it, then yes. <font color="3300FF">] (])</font> 18:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :A possible solution: If the taker-of-the-case doesn't want someone else assisting, and a second mediator decides to assist, then the original taker-of-the-case can plainly request that the second mediator leave the issue. Unless the second mediator is a total dick, then he'll probably comply. :) -- ] <sup>{])</sup> 19:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Well I figure I might as well explain why the suddenness of this whole thing. Basically, the Mediation Cabal used to run in a much more informal way where mediators just swarmed about and worked on cases together. In those times, the MedCab was much more efficient and apparently often 'snarfed' cases off from Arbcom. NicholasTurnbull, the previous coordinator, was trying to shape the Mediation Cabal back into that, but apparently attempts at that have failed. I don't expect the Mediation Cabal to ever go back to that exactly the same, as things have clearly gone quite astray, but I figure that there are ways to at least improve upon current methods. | |||
| ::The way things work now is you have a mediation page that generally excludes people outside of the loop. By encouraging discussions to occur on talk pages, everyone has their say and the argument remains in one piece instead of being brought to two separate pages. Also, when a mediator 'takes' a case, they are effectively blocking out all outside help. People are either too afraid to ask for help or just don't know how to go about doing it. Especially people who are just starting out mediating, we cannot expect them to jump into their first case and magically make everything right again and cure cancer in the process. | |||
| ::The fact is there are clearly some flaws in the current system. I removed a major one recently by removing the assignment of mediators: this was horridly flawed and often resulted in cases getting left in the dust because no one checked up on the assigned mediator and wouldn't realize that the case was ignored. | |||
| ::What I am trying to do could be seen as an experiment to see if it is possible to partially change some of the current processes back to ways that were apparently more efficient. I'm of course open to separate suggestions as well. <font color="DarkGreen">]</font><sup>]</sup> 19:40, 19 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Hmmm, Nicholas was the person who first introduced formalisms, actually. ] 20:58, 19 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Ah, in that case Nicholas was apparently trying to undo the formalisms he created (at least it says so on his talk page, heh). <font color="DarkGreen">]</font><sup>]</sup> 23:18, 19 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Well how about this. We separate off the issues of new mediators and team mediation. | |||
| # I agree with you regarding new mediators needing support. How about first 3 cases they have an assigned "mentor"? First time they assist. Second time they co-mediate and 3rd time they are silently critiqued. | |||
| # We also team critique experienced mediators every few months after the case is over. | |||
| # We create the ability for people to team mediate and start dealing with policy for team mediation. We just don't make it mandatory as per the previous suggestion. | |||
| ]<sup><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></sup> 01:07, 20 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Ah, now we're getting somewhere. It shouldn't be mandatory, true. Each case is different and some are very sensitive. Ones that involve private contact methods are obviously best handled through one person. However, we must remember to keep things as simple as possible. Assigning certain processes to each number of the mediation would only add to the complexity of the mediation cabal. Instead, I feel that proper instructions for new mediators (and putting strong emphasis on the use of asking other mediators for their help if it is needed) would do a lot of good. | |||
| :Adding guidelines as to how team mediation should (usually) run is a good idea as well. We must remember that people aren't forced to mediate in one particular way or another. The goal should be same, but different cases call for different means of coming to a sort of compromise. <font color="DarkGreen">]</font><sup>]</sup> 01:15, 20 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :: Absolutely. Agreed. We got a deal. Now we have to address all my issues above. (Kim any suggestions?). | |||
| * It sounds like for #4 we agree that just goes to one mediator. | |||
| * Do you want #6 to be you or a representative chosen by you? I have to tell you a mediation to arbcom if you take the lead is over well over 20 hrs of dedicated work. Its not a trivial undertaking. | |||
| * I know Kim's pushing for IRC for #5. I can live with IRC or email. I'll even agree to do IRC (bleech!) :-) But here we need the notion of primary. We never fight out of school. I don't want people playing mediators against one another. | |||
| * I think we assign mediators who take long cases as leads to handle cases that fall under #2. Joebone is also good for that, as am I. I think David might be good (though I don't know if he is game). Anyone else? | |||
| ]<sup><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></sup> 02:22, 20 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::A tad too formal for my tastes. I prefer a more loose working atmosphere, rather than all sorts of guidelines and required-things-to-do. Adding more structure just sort of makes the mediation process a bit more difficult, in my opinion. If someone doesn't want other mediators working with them, they could just kindly inform anyone who attempts to do so. As for the mentor part: let's just encourage the newcomers to ask for help when they need it, rather than making it a sort of guideline to follow. <s>Not putting words in his mouth, but I think Cowman wants</s> I'd personally like a more relaxed procedure, so that the mediator has choices and can simply mediate without worrying about a system. Correct me if I'm wrong, of course. -- ] <sup>{])</sup> 01:23, 20 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| When there's a group of mediation cabal people, then , as an example, one person can be the official contact, and others can dig up information, or edit some page or talk page in question whilst pretending to be innocent bystanders. Hey, it's not called a cabal for nothing! It's not like a single person has to fly solo. Even when complete confidentiality is maintained, they can still ask people to help out in other, clever ways. Just so long as you inter-communicate. | |||
| In some cases it might be better to have no ''official contact'' at all. "Oh, we fixed it ourselves" (so... who was that anon who totally refactored the page, and why isn't she coming back?). | |||
| Here's the deal. Current reports on medcab show that while it may be taking all cases, it occaisionally spectacularly bombs. Enough of these spectacular crashes have happened that some oldbies have started to take notice, and took their time to complain to me personally. So we really REALLY need to make sure to police ourselves. In the most unobtrusive way possible, of course! | |||
| That's the other reason we need mutual overview and intercommunication. Let's nurture precicely that. If there's a medcab case, stick a couple of heads together and look at it. Forget any rules or regulations or whatnot. Your job is to be flexible where others cannot. Try to be imaginative, use your wits, be clever! Do what you think will keep people on their feet, and do whatever is nescesary (Gah... within limits... do behave!) to gain a fair consensus. | |||
| I'm doing one case myself now, and helping out on one or two others. I can't do everything on my own all at once, but hopefully over time I'll be able to help out everyone else with one case at least once. | |||
| ] 19:48, 20 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :], too. :) <font color="DarkGreen">]</font><sup>]</sup> 19:52, 20 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Sounds like fun :D -- ] <sup>{])</sup> 19:24, 22 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Possible replacement for suggestions for mediators == | |||
| At ] I have been creating a set of guidelines and suggestions to hopefully replace ]. Feel free to improve the list and discuss it, so I can fix any problems before replacing the suggestions (I attempted to merge the original suggestions list into this one). <font color="DarkGreen">]</font><sup>]</sup> 00:36, 20 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : Keep it up that's a useful page. I've been constructing something more ad-hoc if that would help at all. ] ]<sup><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></sup> | |||
| == Guerilla == | |||
| <s>Does anyone think the guerilla program should be deleted. | |||
| ] 00:03, 21 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Uh, what? It's a completely separate mediation initiative. It basically mimics the earlier procedure of the mediation cabal only in a more radically community-based way. It's a completely separate entity created by NicholasTurnbull (and Kim Bruning, the creator of the Mediation Cabal, is also cooperating with him as well). If you have criticism of that process, the best idea would be to go to Nicholas and talk with him about it, but as it stands now there's no reason it should be deleted. <font color="DarkGreen">]</font><sup>]</sup> 00:25, 21 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Withdrawn, causes for complaint cleared | |||
| ==Brain-icanes== | |||
| (It might help to read the last bit of talk under the "talking vs meditation" section if you're a little confused.) | |||
| What medium do you suggest we use for all of this intermediator communication? Could we put random shoutouts on this talk page, or would finding someone individually make more sense? I absolutely adore that last idea about being flexible and using inventive techniques to solve a problem, and I'd like to see more stuff like this being postulated. | |||
| It seems to me that many people are at least somewhat unhappy with the current methodology, or maybe they're just getting bored with it, heh. So, this section will be for discussing any changes that would make us more efficient. I like all of the ideas that people have formed up so far, so I figured I'd make a section for getting even more cool ideas. Essentially this is a brainstorm, but I'd like to see it bloom into a brain-icane. Post up any oddball idea that comes to mind, as it just might be a serious consideration.-- ] <sup>{])</sup> 19:41, 22 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : This is not just being postulated. It's the traditional modus operandi. Actually I've never stopped working that way. Please don't cross me on procedural matters (like efficiency or reliability) ''just'' right now, as I'd like to get some minimum sanity in there first, and I'm not yet sure which medcab members I can trust with that yet. Note that I'm not very big on the dictator thing, so I '''''will''''' be handing things off as quickly as I can practically do so. (And you'll likely hate me for it :-P ) | |||
| : As to brainstorming on contact methods and such, that's great! I strongly reccomend irc at least. irc.freenode.net, #wikipedia and #wikipedia-en . You can find other people there, and brainstorm faster too. Pair up with whoever you like, try talking with them on their talk page or on irc, or elsewhere, if you can figure something out. | |||
| : When you do discuss stuff, please try to get Jbolden or Cowman involved too. (or in weekends, you could drag me in too, I suppose. I'm curious what people can come up with!) ] 22:05, 22 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :: Also, even though I seem to have been declared ''persona non grata'' here (not only have I been deposed as coordinator, but I've also been marked "Inactive" as a mediator, which is nice - especially since nobody has either assigned any cases to me, nor asked me whether I wished to remain as a mediator) I am always available for any kind of assistance I might be able to offer on how to fix things. Really my little ] thing was something of a test-bed, perhaps, of what the medcab might want to look at implementing. I would be glad to be of service in discussion, analysis, etc. Best regards, --] | ] 01:48, 23 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::I did it. If you weren't inactive as a mediator you'd know we don't assign cases anymore at all. Now do you actually want to help, with jobs that require you show up on a regular basis and have follow through (like mediation)? ]<sup><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></sup> 11:40, 23 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Please don't patronise me, jbolden. If you would like me to mediate, I am at your service; however, your insinuations that, in so doing, I would renege upon the cases I engaged in, are unnecessary. As for being unaware that assignments don't take place, then how is the backlog to be shifted? If cases really are just left for people to take as they wish without any coordinator intervention, there is a strong danger that cases will be overlooked, especially where they are undesirably ugly. --] | ] 23:43, 24 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: We handle it the way we usually do, we discuss cases here and bring them and one of us volunteers for the "ugly" cases. By in large that infrequently happens and when it does the cases still get taken with days. In the last few months the backlog has been running at about a day on average. | |||
| ::::: As for my "insinuations" they weren't meant as insinuations so I'll make the outright statements. You have been negligent and derelict in your duties as coordinator. You had obligations and you didn't bother to show up. | |||
| :::::# There are 3 cases currently before arbcom that matured under you watch. You've had 0 input on any of them. You've offered 0 assistance to the mediators. | |||
| :::::# We have about a dozen cases that could have used administrative assistance. You've helped on 0 of them. | |||
| :::::# We've had major policy shifts which you knew nothing about and did nothing to assist | |||
| :::::# We've had changed in leaders | |||
| :::::# We've had a breakdown in our communications with other part of dispute resolution. As well as the fact that other parts of dispute resolution have had perpendicular problems to ours, and if you had been present to negotiate cross functional resolution wikipedia as a whole would be a lot better off. | |||
| ::::: So yeah so I feel perfectly within my rights to consider you irresponsible. When you want to walk away from a position of leadership you transition the office you don't just stop showing up. I can't imagine doing what you did. I'd love to hear an explanation for your actions but don't for a second think that you act like an injured party here is going to make me feel guilty about saying mean things to you. The amount of pain, distress and destruction you've caused by your dereliction of duty far outweighs anything I've said to you so far. We have junior mediators start a case and then drop it all the time, they get marked as inactive. And you've done far worse. ]<sup><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></sup> 03:20, 25 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::By the way, I really like the way the Guerilla Mediation Network works. The only concerns I have is that it provides less information for mediators to work with, in comparison to the sometimes-insightful case pages. I wonder what would spawm from a mixing of the two systems? -- ] <sup>{])</sup> 06:26, 23 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ===Criticy-ness=== | |||
| Ok, since there's not really a place to put requests for being critiqued, I've got the wonderful idea of having a section on the talk page for it, so that all the requests aren't sprawled out everywhere. Thoughts? -- ] <sup>{])</sup> 23:55, 22 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Hmm maybe a subpage since this is where random people come to for help anything cabal-related. <font color="DarkGreen">]</font><sup>]</sup> 00:01, 23 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Huh? I think we might be talking about two different things here. I'm referring to mediators request to be analyzed and given suggestions and whatno, just to clarify. -- ] <sup>{])</sup> 02:23, 23 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Hm.. no I don't understand :D. Are you proposing that a part of this talk page is set aside for asking for assistance in cases? <font color="DarkGreen">]</font><sup>]</sup> 02:43, 23 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::That is a good idea, especially crucial for aspiring med cabalists who seek improvement. -- ]<small>(])</small> 02:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Oh, wow. It took me three read-throughs to understand that. Note to self - reading these sorts of things when I'm half asleep is not a good idea. A section aside for critiquing definitely would be beneficial, yes. <font color="DarkGreen">]</font><sup>]</sup> 02:59, 23 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| This could also apply to other community-request stuff, maybe a section for "Requests for assistance in meditation". But, then again, having a section specifically for assistance requests might accidentally discourage spontaneous assistance... you never know. -- ] <sup>{])</sup> 06:13, 23 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ===Simplified case submittion (More ease-of-use)=== | |||
| I was thinking about the whole case template thing, and I think it may be possible that the complexity of the case templates might be detracting potential case-fillers. Unfortunately, I can't really think of any ideas for simplification or ease-of-use... so this is just a placeholder for any ideas on it. -- ] <sup>{])</sup> 06:26, 23 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : And this differs from the same idea you proposed 2 weeks ago ] how exactly? In any case in the meanwhile I've actually thought about your idea and I'm starting to believe that we actually need to offer a variety of types of mediation services. That really the problem is we have a "one size fit all approach" which doesn't work as well as it should for a variety of cases. But I will say this. I lost this debate with Fasten way back but I still believe that anyone not willing to fill out a form is not going to be willing to engage in the work of mediation. I'm not sure we shouldn't discourage those people. Cases where the participants refuse to engage are a big time waster for everyone. Mediation takes a lot more time than editing. It takes less time then pointless edit wars. ]<sup><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></sup> 11:50, 23 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Eh, it's mildly different, the ideas refer to different concepts and all (One is less structure for mediators, one is simplicity for users of the system.), but yes, they do tend to merge a bit on principles. I agree wholeheartedly, we need a better variety as you described above. Would it make sense to simply let the mediators themselves choose the method of approach? I realize we do this already, of course, so that's probably not a problem that needs dealing with. -- ] <sup>{])</sup> 21:17, 24 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :: Yeah I like that idea, or perhaps joint. Person asks for method A mediator can accept to do method B and then everyone can accept B or we go back to A. ]<sup><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></sup> 04:34, 25 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I was understanding that the whole point of the MEDCAB was informality. I think the idea of, "I'm not sure we shouldn't discourage those people." is heading extremely in the wrong direction. We should be heading for a system where it doesn't matter if half of cases peter out without serious consensus being made, or if the requesters abandon them. The point is we should be there, with easy access for people who need it. If procedure is getting in the way of this, and we're starting to feel that "it takes up too much to clean up after each case" then we're doing it wrong. - ] ] 00:59, 25 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Agreed. I wasn't suggesting any more procedure at all, I think jbolden misunderstood what I said. Allow me to clarify: | |||
| ::Rather than adding needless "types" of mediation methods into our system, I'm saying we simply let the individual mediator choose the way they handle a case, no changes in the system at all. The idea is, after all, "simplification and ease-of-use"... not "add more procedure". -- ] <sup>{])</sup> 05:05, 25 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Removal of ] as co-coordinator; reinstating myself in place == | |||
| Dear Cabalists: Due to persistent incivility shown by {{user|Jbolden1517}} towards myself and other users, both on this talk page and others, I am confident that this individual does not possess an adequate ability for rational discussion in order to carry on a position as co-coordinator. If this is the manner in which Jbolden1517 treats colleagues, frankly I do not see that permitting this user to work with mediation dispute participants is at all advisable. I am undertaking this action on the authority of Kim Bruning's initial decision to delegate the management of the Mediation Cabal to me, although should the Coordinator disagree with this decision he is of course entirely at liberty to reverse it - and likewise should any users here disagree with this decision, I will reverse it. Yours sincerely, --] | ] 03:37, 25 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : You were removed from office. Kim was aware and this occurred prior to Cowman and I taking office. So KIm's authority (as far as it goes) cuts the other way. I've always recognized Cowman's authority and I continue to. If he wants my resignation he can have it but you sure as hell can't fire me. ]<sup><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></sup> 03:51, 25 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : But you ''appointed'' Cowman, as you indicated in your e-mail to me on the subject. However, I won't revert war. You make unpleasant and uncalled-for responses to what I thought was a perfectly reasonable point, and if you behave like that to your colleagues then I cannot see how you could possibly be placed with any authority over this initiative. You write as if I did nothing; but in fact, I was the designer of the Medcab as it is at present, and was the one who developed it from an inactive beginning into a functioning system. I cannot see how you can make such vile responses to reasonable comment and expect to be permitted to remain in partial responsibility over a mediation initiative. --] | ] 03:56, 25 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :: Let me make this clear. A long time ago you did good stuff, no questions asked. Its what happened after that I find totally unacceptable. And as for my "vile responses" you didn't actually address them. You aren't my colleague you are a predecessor. I never worked with you on any cases. Fasten was running the show by the time I joined medcab. Its been a long time since you've been running things on anything but paper. | |||
| :: I have made a clear stance that we are going to have standards and we are going to have ethics and we are going to get medcab back to where it was when Kim was running the show. If people want misbehavior to go unmentioned and unpunished then I should be removed. | |||
| :: I tried to be gentile with you, you'll notice no conversation of why you were removed when it happened it was all in email. Right now, you can feel free to delete the comments on this page. I still think I'd rather do it quietly, it was you who forced the issue. ]<sup><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></sup> 04:19, 25 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::I'm tempted to make a case page for Misplaced Pages talk:Mediation Cabal. ^.^ -- ] <sup>{])</sup> 04:31, 25 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::: Jbolden1517: Rather than making further remarks about my absence from duty being "totally unacceptable", it is thus clear, then, that you must know the reasoning; I have had recurrent mental health difficulties which have caused my occasional absence from Misplaced Pages, and undoubtedly Kim Bruning can verify this for you - hence, also, the reason behind my elongated Computing course at college. I offer this not as an excuse in the slightest, but merely because you appear to be under the impression that my failure to carry out coordination duties was via direct commission; I can assure you that was not the case, and I will not accept accusations to the contrary. | |||
| :::: It is clear, sir, that you misunderstand the nature of the Mediation Cabal, if you believe that the Mediation Cabal deals with issues by them being "mentioned" and "punished", and that I believe I am not in error about; thus if you really are going to take this authoritarian stance, then you should change it, or be removed. The Mediation Cabal is an informal mediation initiative. The idea was that we had a free-form structure that could be easily changed, not a hierarchy of authoritarian command. The difference between you and I of what counts as "gentle" clearly varies. As for your e-mail, you specified Cowman as coordinator, to which I raised no objection; but your self-appointment as co-coordinator was neither mentioned, nor given tacit consent by myself nor Kim. I stand by my comments, and will not remove them, nor will I permit them to be removed. Sincerely, --] | ] 04:35, 25 June 2006 (UTC)<br> | |||
| :<s>Based on what little info I have on the situation, I'd have to say Nicholas made a pretty hasty movement, although I have no background info on these emails and whatnot. However, I also can't disagree with him too much.</s> ''(I now have more information, and thus take back the above statements)'' Jbolden hasn't really been the friendliest of chaps to me. And after: | |||
| <blockquote>''I agree with Cowman, we need less of this formal stuff. -- ] <sup>{])</sup> 04:51, 25 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::''And this is based on what? You've done 3 cases so far none of which were complicated. So in the 12 days you've been active in wikipedia what formal procedure got in your way? How would a less formal structure have helped you with your three cases? Oh and what does formal structure have to do with either side of this argument. Please educate me.'' | |||
| :::''If you want to self delete feel free. ] 02:47, 19 June 2006 (UTC)''</blockquote> | |||
| :I'm pretty reluctant to claim Nicholas' decision was a bad idea. -- ] <sup>{])</sup> 04:51, 25 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Jbolden1517, a hostile approach is not the one that contributes to resolving disputes, and certainly something that we should be looking for in a mediation co-ordinator. In your experience of mediation, if that kind of tone has ever been successful I would be very interested to know, as I've only got mileage from being calm, collected and sparingly forceful. I think we're both trying to do our best, but comments such as "Oh and what does formal structure have to do with either side of this argument. Please educate me" come accross as sarcastic and on the verge of incivility. - ] ] 13:36, 25 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :: Agreed I was being sarcastic to TPWCC. I was not attempting to resolve any dispute with him. Look there are two specific people here: | |||
| ::* A newbie who made really dumb comments and was getting in the way of a more series policy conversation. I was trying to indicate to him that his input was poorly informed and destructive to the flow of conversation. There was no attempt at dispute resolution there, there was no dispute. ]. My dispute was with Cowman; we did resolve chunks of it successfully. TPWCC provided interfering background noise. This is similar to what he's done in this engagement, where he has re-factored a talk page and moving a comment of mine without providing context, making a more serious discussion more difficult and bringing you in. That's generally called trolling when done intentionally, though I see no evidence of intent on TPWCC's part. That is he seems annoying but not really a serious threat to the smooth functioning of the organization. Incidentally Cowman and I debated back and forth on how to handle this and I agreed to take it on the chin and not set a precedent for deletion. But there was no debate the comments by TPWCC were stupid. | |||
| ::* A former coordinator who agreed to step down to avoid a full fledged impeachment hearing. As a courtesy I got his buy in when we removed him, but by that point the choice to remove him had been made. Contrary to Nicholas' belief I'm trying desperately to avoid major incivility here. A full fledged removal from office / impeachment if contested means pointing and dozens of cases derailed by the hundreds of places where Nicholas has failed in his duties. He thinks my comments above is vile he has no idea what that's going to feel like. I really do not want to be forced to do that. | |||
| ::** The same problem is already starting on his new initiative where a process that promises a mediator in hours has been sitting around unattended for a week ] | |||
| ::** And the fact on the very day he was attacking me as unfit to lead we had 5 new issues arise in medcab, 4 of which any mediator could have dealt with and he handled 0. | |||
| ::: As a recently deposed leader there are people such as yourself who will give him considerable say and influence, which makes his potential for harm much greater than someone like TPWCC. As I indicated at the start, without a change in attitude regarding responsibility on his part I do not want him here for a year or two. Medcab has a well deserved reputation for letting cases fall through the cracks, and I would like to change that. | |||
| ::: Anyway, I never wanted to be deputy coordinator. What I wanted was someone qualified in office willing to take on the responsibilities of office. You've been a solid member of medcab for a while. If you want to be accept a responsibility on a daily basis I have no problem handing the reins over to you. Then you can make these calls and I can go back to worrying about my 1/2 dozen cases. | |||
| ::: Finally, if you are arguing that I'm unfit to be a mediator I'd like you to point to specific cases where my "character defects" have derailed a solution. In my opinion my case record speaks for itself, I consider your charge baseless and false and I think I'm entitled to a retraction. ]<sup><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></sup> 14:37, 25 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : I will say one thing (a long one) I'm new I have no traceable edit history of any value I never mediated anything here, I am however fully human and not wet behind the ears. I have professional experience in resolving disputes and leading young inexperienced teams. You guys have no idea how happy I am that the mediation cabal exists. If wikipedia was just about rules, arbitration rulings, contention not consensus, admins, power, social cliques, in groups, outgroups, point scoring, never backing down, fits of pique no matter how elgantly expressed, then I would would feel sad about its possible future. But having seen the discussions here I can see the future is certain, one might say innevitable. (yeah just an ip in the history) (This statement like wikipedia is about the idea not the person or personality who made it.) | |||
| Physician heal thyself. | |||
Revision as of 15:19, 25 June 2006
New sections at bottom, please.
 Archives |
|---|