Misplaced Pages

talk:Mediation Cabal: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 13:26, 24 July 2006 editSandyGeorgia (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, File movers, Mass message senders, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers, Template editors278,950 edits →Closed case: Come to medcab← Previous edit Revision as of 14:28, 24 July 2006 edit undoZeraeph (talk | contribs)5,776 edits →Closed case: unpicking vexatious confabulationsNext edit →
Line 338: Line 338:


:::::Here is the quote: ''"Hi, if you have an ongoing dispute, please take it though the ] process. I can heartily recommend the ]. Please do not post any more to the ] on this subject."'' I do hope you will decide to use the mediation, and I will request that it be left open a few days longer. Regards, ] 13:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC) :::::Here is the quote: ''"Hi, if you have an ongoing dispute, please take it though the ] process. I can heartily recommend the ]. Please do not post any more to the ] on this subject."'' I do hope you will decide to use the mediation, and I will request that it be left open a few days longer. Regards, ] 13:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

::On my talk page (not ]as ] stated) and 17 hours after I opened , which rather invalidates the statement ''"where he was told he should come to MedCab. Then he opened a mediation"'' made by ] along with all it's underlying implications and connotations. As I said, I have a life, I don't have all day to unpick these vexatious confabulations. --] 14:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


:::I made my own choice, independent of anyone, to try and seek mediation. However when I saw the nature of ]'s responses I realises Medcab would be a serious mistake, in this instance, not least because if anything said by, or about, someone does not suit ] she is certain to misrepresent it somewhere, sooner or later, and there will always be people who do not bother to check and just believe her, until the resulting distortion does not resemble the facts in the slightest. I have a life and I honestly do not have the time to spend trawling histories to check, and usually debunk, every statement ] makes so that any discussion with her will be about facts, rather than fiction of her own concocting, which is the only alternative. :::I made my own choice, independent of anyone, to try and seek mediation. However when I saw the nature of ]'s responses I realises Medcab would be a serious mistake, in this instance, not least because if anything said by, or about, someone does not suit ] she is certain to misrepresent it somewhere, sooner or later, and there will always be people who do not bother to check and just believe her, until the resulting distortion does not resemble the facts in the slightest. I have a life and I honestly do not have the time to spend trawling histories to check, and usually debunk, every statement ] makes so that any discussion with her will be about facts, rather than fiction of her own concocting, which is the only alternative.

Revision as of 14:28, 24 July 2006

Shortcut
  • ]

New sections at bottom, please.

Archive
Archives

Organisation debates

Ok kids, cool down. Currently I think you guys gave me the last word on organisation, so what's this about arguing over things you've already delegated?

Please contact me per E-mail.

Kim Bruning 15:24, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, got mailed. Sorted stuff out. Now returning you to your regularly scheduled service. Kim Bruning 21:15, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Mind filling the rest of us in? I'm a tad curious myself just what all this racket was about.
Oh, and I sincerely apologize Jbolden, I had no intention of displaying any sort of troll-like behavior, I was actually attempting to project a calm tone of voice, but I guess it didn't transfer into text very well. If I display any hostility in the future, please inform me. -- The Prophet Wizard of the Crayon Cake 21:21, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Lot of ado about everything and nothing. It's in the archives basically. In the end nothing big changes for today, except no more fight, which is good. In any case, this case does not require further mediation at this point in time ;-) Kim Bruning 21:41, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Unused templates nominated for deletion

Misplaced Pages:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_June_26#Template:DisputedMC
Misplaced Pages:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_June_26#Template:ActiveDiscussMC

I nominated these template for deletion. --Fasten 20:07, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Welcome back, Fasten! And thanks. Cowman109 02:44, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Jbolden1517 is not a member of the mediation cabal

Jbolden1517 edited the mediation cabal page to state that he was a co-coordinator of the mediation cabal.

He has claimed before the arbitration committee that he is a mediator.

Both these claims are now false.

As of this moment, Jbolden is not a member of the mediation cabal, and there has never been any kind of consensus on wikipedia allowing him to claim he is a mediator. Jbolden does not speak for the mediation cabal, and has no authority wrt the mediation cabal. Kim Bruning 17:06, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh no, please don't say the magic spell. Ouch, I'm melting I'm melting. Get a grip, Kim. jbolden1517 01:29, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Digital_me

Please note that this is mostly a process complaint. Digital_me undertook this mediation, which was to resolve an evenly divided poll. He did not facilitate discussion in any way; he essentially decided that one side was right and they had won.

I understand that this is a temptation; but he should have recused himself and joined in the poll. I do not find this an acceptable process of mediation; and I do not expect to accept him as a mediator again. Septentrionalis 01:16, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal channel on freenode

#wikipedia-medcab on freenode is registered. Just to let'cha all know. :)

I 49'd myself for the time being (happily open for moving it to someone else if needbe) and added a limited number of users to access level 45. Questions, comments, etc... happily discussed. ~Kylu (u|t) 01:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

You beat me to it by a mile, cool! :-) Kim Bruning 09:30, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

MSTCrow

User:MSTCrow has recently added himself to the mediator list; as he is someone with three recent blocks for personal attacks (one of a week's duration), I feel he is unsuited to be listed on the page. Do we have a process for establishing consensus on these things? Sdedeo (tips) 11:39, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

As far as I have seen, anyone can add their name to the list. I guess if they take a case and the person who filed doesn't feel they are credible or neutral, they can request a new mediator. --Aguerriero (talk) 13:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
His blocks were two months ago, and a lot can change in that time. As I've been been saying for some time, if we get into the habit of watching eachother's backs, we can prevent any major goofs from happening in advance. So instead of discouraging him, assume good faith and simply keep an eye out for trouble in his cases as you would for any other new mediator. Cowman109 15:54, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, given that I've already had rather negative interactions with him -- -- and he seems to be liberal with his anger and threats -- all my AGF was quickly exhausted. He doesn't seem appropriate, IMO. Sdedeo (tips) 18:54, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Cowman109, he may have changed. we should wait and see.Geo. 22:49, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
I also have concerns about MSTCrow, but I'll just keep an eye on his cases. Ideogram 22:28, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

New ideas

So, there's been a lot of banter going on in the IRC channel about new ideas, so I'm putting all of the proposed ideas here. If I forgot any, please add them. This is now the "ideas" section, for discussing new ideas and stuff, so any new ideas are welcome to be put here. Yaaay.


An opentasks styled case list:
Kylu suggested we change the current case list to an opentasks-like template, with links on the side such as "create a new case" and "file a complaint" and other such conviently-accescable buttons.


Inputbox:
I suggested that we change the current method of case creation to a inputbox style. An example of such an inputbox(still in development) can be found at Misplaced Pages:Mediation Cabal/Inputbox, created by Keitei. You can also check out my dabblings with the inputbox at My Box of Desert.

Please check out Template:Medcab, which is the information that will show up just above the case-page editbox after someone clicks "create a case page" on the inputbox. At the moment, it's mainly composed of copied and pasted stuff, and really doesn't explain things well. Please revise it when you can, as it needs some work.

I'm thinking a different color might look neato for the inputbox, any sugestions for a new color?

Aaaaand, I can't remember the rest.. someone fill them in. The Prophet Wizard of the Crayon Cake 23:05, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm in the process of setting up a new way to list cases such that it's all automated. The idea is that the template for case creation subst:'s Category:Misplaced Pages Medcab new cases. Then when a mediator decides to mediate, they change that to Category:Misplaced Pages Medcab open cases. Likewise, when closing, it's changed to Category:Misplaced Pages Medcab closed cases (not created or used yet). With these categories in place, I'm making a bot that will list them and automatically update. This way nobody needs to update the Cases page (except my bot), it's friendlier for new users and case filers (because coupled with the Inputbox, they'll need to do close to nothing), and is fairly streamlined.
The idea is that the bot will put pages in the new category in one section, and the pages in the open category in another. When a case switches to closed, the bot automatically archives it. Depending on how intensive on the database the bot is, it'll probably run every half hour to fifteen minutes. I'm not sure, and it'll have to go through the bots stuff first.
Also, if a case needs a new mediator, it can be put back to new. I'd think if it needs more mediators, it could be mentioned at the coordination desk? I'm not quite sure how everything will work out... but this should be better. :] --Keitei (talk) 02:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Heres an idea that probably wasnt in the IRC as I wasnt there and I just thought of it.

Recently the cabal had discussion here that was moved to IRC. That was a good idea. It is something you do from time to time. Recently there was also a discussion about things getting formalised, and I dont like rules(a POV of mine, as I find rules are generally silly), especially for things like you guys are doing, they as programmers say smell wrong. So my twisty suggestion is that you formalise a list of things that while they do happen will not be formalised. :) The idea seems twisty and round, either that or Im twisted...

Things not to be formalised

  • Some things are discussed here for good reason. Some things are discussed elsewhere, which is which and why shall not be formalised.
  • Some mediations need one guiding mediator, some wiki problems mainly need a role model to remind people what we are here for. That person has no status and is just wikipedian who has decided to contibute to an article becuase they can, this is as always a wiki whether or not a dispute is being resolved in a public forum. There no need to step back hands off and only gawk.
  • Some mediations need one guiding mediator, and also must be conducted in private, which is not transparent but sometimes transparency must be sacrificed. In these cases you also lose the possibility of other Good faith wikipedians providing role models as there is only protagonists in the room.
  • How to decide which is which shall not be formalised, but the benfits and hinderences learnt by experience may well be shared by colleagues.

Finally as far as I have observed the most powerful weapon you guys have is that you dont just assume good faith, you know the other cabalists here have good faith, so you can just pass the ball when cornered. Eg. Sdedeo raised a point, Aguerriero, Cowman109 basically teplied 'trust in the wikiness' and assume good faith. Sdedeo replied yeah but Im human, and thus the ball was passed. None was in postion to both identify and resolve things, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. So what is this nirvana you guys (IMO) should search for? You will know you are close when you start finishing one anothers

Who am I? Well Im not a mediator and I am not a member of your cabal, and presume that as this is wiki you dont mind me butting in, in good faith. I recently measured myself and I am also not a even good wikipedian, however I am a rather good problem solver and optimiser, and especially of the kind of things that when they are formalised become inherently broken. Hence my tiniest poke in the wall with a hole in it. The future is no longer clear to me once more I proceed into wikipedia with naive optimism. :) AccurateOne 04:49, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Bot

There is a bot written (by Ericj) which will put all pages in the new cases category in an area specified on a certain page (namely the new cases section, on the Cases page, but it hasn't been set up yet). The bot request is here. I can do the same for open cases, but it will eliminate the mediator from the list as well as any comments. I'm inclined to think that is a GoodThing, and that comments should be on case talk pages, but I'd like community input. Eventually I'd like to set up automatic archiving, but there isn't any now.

To accept a case
  1. Change the category from Category:Misplaced Pages Medcab new cases to Category:Misplaced Pages Medcab open cases. That will remove it from the new cases section. If open cases is automated (as I would like), it will also be moved to the open cases section automatically. If it isn't, you'll need to put it there yourself.
  2. If automated, you might want to indicate somewhere that you're looking at it and can be contacted, etc.
To close a case
  1. Change the category from Category:Misplaced Pages Medcab open cases to Category:Misplaced Pages Medcab closed cases. Then list it at the archive. If open cases is automated, it won't appear on the cases page anymore. If it isn't, you'll need to remove it also.

I think that's about it. Please ask questions, give suggestions, whatever. --Keitei (talk) 12:23, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Update
Bot is approved for a trial run. It is running about every 10 minutes (need to tweak a bit), and the bot generated list has not replaced what is there already. We're trying the inputbox on a trial run as well. Please give input as to how well you think these work. --Keitei (talk) 21:51, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

New cases are getting added to the bot list but not the oldstyle list. Is this deliberate? Ideogram 22:26, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, you know I'm old and senile and all, so wasn't quite understanding this: Can I continue archiving cases, or is the bot going to do something weird and/or break if I keep trying to keep things archived? I haven't touched it so far, since figured that's what the bot was for. Thanks! ~Kylu (u|t) 23:02, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
I wasn't talking about the archiving. I noticed that "QDB" and "POV on Joe Lieberman" for instance aren't listed under "Cases in need of mediators" but are listed under "Bot generated list of cases needing mediators". Ideogram 23:10, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
The new input box creates an orphaned case page with ]. When the bot checks the list every 15 minutes or so, it puts the cases with the new cases category in the bot generated list. At the moment the new cases list is not being used. When a case is taken, it should still be moved to the list of cases in mediation and the category tag should be changed to ]. The bot at the moment just deals with listing new cases, I believe. Cowman109 00:33, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Adding new->open moving functionality is in the works. It'll be followed by some stuff for administrative tasks. EricJ 01:12, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Umm, is this bot going to fill the history with edits every ten minutes? That could be kind of annoying. Ideogram 01:23, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

The bot only edits when there is something to update - it's the same as someone adding a new case, only it makes it so that all someone has to do is create the case page instead of create the case page and add a link to it in the open cases section. Cowman109 01:24, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I see that now. Ideogram 01:25, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Jbolden1517

I don't know enough about the background to this to have been able to get involved earlier in the fuss over User:Jbolden1517. I still don't really understand what's going on, but I would like to share what I do know: I and others recognize that Jbolden1517 has put a hell of a lot of effort into mediation, and has been instrumental in rescuing some very dire situations (eg on Every Nation). Now that Jbolden1517 has announced s/he (someone help me out with the whole gender thing here) is leaving Misplaced Pages, I'd like to appeal to others to reconsider how this situation might be resolved more amicably, and with a better outcome. Ya'll are supposed to be mediators! ;¬) Seems to me Jbolden1517 has put too much good work into Misplaced Pages for it to end in this way. Sincerely, David L Rattigan 09:24, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I've talked to the parties concerned and, beleive you me, I desperately wanted a mediated outcome. Hopefully none of them mention that I actually begged them on IRC to come to amicable terms, but I'm afraid it didn't work out that way this time. :( ~Kylu (u|t) 22:55, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Please list the status of a case in the mediator response section

Due to current bot limitations, please explain the status of a case in the mediator response section of a case, so that way discussion will not clutter the case list and will instead be in the case page itself. Thanks. Cowman109 00:44, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


Changing the inputbox a little bit

I've changed the inputbox a little bit (as the section title suggests). I chaged it to say "the name of the article in dispute " instead of "a short description of your dispute"... hopefully this will eliminate some of the assuming-bad-faith and NPOV case names that have been poping up lately. I've also changed the look and feel of the whole thing, to make it look spiffier.


Tell me what you think, and give some suggestions while your at it. --The Prophet Wizard of the Crayon Cake 05:38, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

new template: Broad input

I found myself typing this a lot so I created a template, Template:Broad input. Here is what it looks like:

You may wish to appeal to a broader community for input by asking at the Village pump, posting a Wikiquette alert, or filing a Request for Comment.

I also found Template:Tilde, which I didn't know about before. --Ideogram 06:07, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Who is working on what

With this new system, there is no way for a cabalist to see who is working on what, I found that kind of handy to be honest, to just see a list of what everyone was working on. TruthCrusader 18:50, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that the names of mediators certainly was handy. I believe there are plants to get the bot to recognize who is assisting in the mediation of a case and list it on the main page, along with any comments through the use of a template. You'll have to ask Keitei about that, though. Cowman109 19:13, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
That is indeed in the works. Since I'm not writing the bot, I don't know when it'll be up and running, but it should be soon. What the bot will be able to do is take input from a template on each case page and grab who the mediator is (and perhaps a few other details) and print that on the Cases page. It'll be a {{user}} format, as far as I know, perhaps a different template with a similar purpose for mediators/cabalists. Anyhow, the idea is to make everything simpler for everyone and to make filing and accepting a case simple. In the interim period, there are several drawbacks, but it should be a lot cooler soon. :] --Keitei (talk) 01:27, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

jumpTV listed twice

jumpTV is listed under both open and needing mediators. Looking at the case itself I see it is tagged as open but no mediator is listed. Ideogram 18:20, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

That was due the case accidentally being in both the open and new cases category. I have moved the category listing a bit further down in the template so it is not overlooked in the future. Cowman109 23:20, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Someone to relieve me

I am working on a Misplaced Pages:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-07-02 QDB, however I need to take a rather urgent Wikibreak (or rather I am already sort of on it) due to real life matters and I don't know when I will be back. Could be just a couple of days or could be over a week. So could someone please take over this case for me.

It is just a matter of deciding whether QDB should be a disambiguation page or whether it should redirect to the page of the most popular website that uses the acronym QDB. The discussion is taking place at Talk:QDB (and it seems since that it is growing a bit out of hand - in one day of my absence there appeared what looks like a list of ad hominems with an argument over those rather than an issue). I hope someone can take up this case quickly - if I return soon I will be willing to can take it back on my shoulders again. Thanks in advance!--Konstable 07:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Never mind that, I have it all sorted early - so I'm no longer on a wikibreak.--Konstable 01:49, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

templates on TFD

it would be *really helpful* if medcabers could drop by WP:TFD and comment on Template:DisputedMC and Template:ActiveDiscussMC, I don't tknow what to do with them .-- Drini 21:46, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Please archive cases (UPDATE:errr... nevermind)

With the new bot in place it seems that no one has archived a page. This might be a serious problem as cases are being closed and not archived, and are thus lost from pretty much every list other than Category:Misplaced Pages Medcab closed cases. Please remember the archive when you close things. --The Prophet Wizard of the Crayon Cake 23:53, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Er.. nevermind. I've been informed by Cowman that we're not really sure what's going to be happening yet.. so for now we don't archive pages, and use Category:Misplaced Pages Medcab closed cases to find old cases. --The Prophet Wizard of the Crayon Cake 00:18, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

The critisism hurts sooo good.

Hmmm... so I'm bored, and want to know how everybody thinks I'm doing. Tell me my good and bad points when I mediate an issue, so I can get an idea of what you folks think.

Be honest!!! I promise I won't rip your head off for being blunt. I want your honest opinion, not flattery.


Current cases I'm involved in:

Some old cases: (Chronological order)


Thanks. --The Prophet Wizard of the Crayon Cake 18:25, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Confusion over case page prefix

I notice someone accidentally deleted the "Misplaced Pages:Mediation Cabal/Cases/" prefix from their case and apparently created the case in article space. This could easily be avoided if the input box didn't require the user to enter the prefix and simply added it to the user's input. --Ideogram 23:53, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

It is currently impossible to do that with the inputbox code. We are currently hoping a developer will optimize the code in the future *cough Rob cough cough*. Cowman109 03:37, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
To be honest, I think the input box was a bad idea from the outset, for exactly that reason. When designing user interfaces, it is of paramount importance that the user interface is designed in such a manner as that it is as near to impossible as possible for the user to make an error. One of the architects of the Toyota Production System, Shigeo Shingo, called this principle in Japanese poka-yoke, literally translating to "mistake prevention" - although I hardly think the old system embodied this principle, the current one introduces more margin for the user to misunderstand what to do, and make an error. What we need to do is simplify as much as possible versus implementing pretty technical gizmos; really I suggest moving away from using a fixed case page creation system and instead either having a serial list on the main medcab page, or alternatively using a category based system as I piloted at the Guerrilla Mediation Network (which never, admittedly, got off the ground; but served as a model for how a system like this could work). --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 00:20, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
The category idea works in principle but if you have a discussion ranging across several articles and talk spaces it might fall down... just a thought! -- Tmorton166 (Errant Emote) 11:51, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
I notice now people are not adding the date to the prefix. Can we generate a prefix including it? --Ideogram 00:54, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Also a limitation of inputboxes at the moment, unfortunately :/ Cowman109 00:56, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
This is really bad. We're going to spend a lot of time cleaning up after people. --Ideogram 01:00, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
No, we are not. These aren't overwhelming technical limitations. When I suggested the inputbox, I assumed that en.wp had the same extensions we use at uncyc (prefix option, etc), which it doesn't. However, it was my understanding that it was going to be fixed within a week or so, which is why I thought we might as well go ahead with it. Code exists which will hide the text, if Rob isn't going to be doing it anymore, I'll see if I can bug some devs. If they give a ridiculous estimate of time, sure, let's go back to template stuff which is more confusing imho. But in no way am I suggesting the default option be permanent. --Keitei (talk) 01:16, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Just brainstorming, here, but I think this method is both pretty much foolproof and workable with the tools we currently have. So, (again, just brainstorming) we could nix the inputbox, and instead use a complicated edit URL: . That link takes you to an edit page for Misplaced Pages:Mediation Cabal/Newcases, but it does so with the editing instructions and preloaded text that we like, and it's got "section=new" (so while your edits are added to /Newpages no matter what you do, you basically get the illusion that you're working with your own page. Then, we have our lovely Keiteibot patrol /Newpages for recent edits, give the case an appropriate case name, create the subpage, and bam. Other benefits I see, we could edit the Medcab2 template, so that sections like "Mediator response" and such aren't available until the case page is created (reduced confusion), and have the bot add those in as it creates the case page. I hope I'm making sense, here. I think this is workable. Not perfect, but workable. Thoughts? Luna Santin 08:26, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Sounds confusing but workable. Is anyone able to modify the bot though?? -- Errant(formerly tmorton166) 08:49, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
How do you propose we automatically assign a case name? Some of our current limitations are due to lack of consensus and the fact that some people who shall remain nameless hate my design style (even those they are easy things to change, I'm not being paid enough to do web design for a type-A anymore). We need a method that is more-or-less foolproof and capable of being automated, meaning the process needs to be chosen and there needs to be something in the page to work with if we want status information on the cases page. Adding additional sections after the page is created is easy, but it might cause edit conflicts with n00bs that save...look...save...look...save. EricJ 17:37, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
I see what you mean about the difficlties of making the bot do as Luna Satin suggested, mostly because (as you noted) it will never be foolproof. SO why not a completely different approach. How about we cetae a template to add to the article. eg: {{Template:medcab_article}} that then took the article name and the current date and created and edit url like the one suggested above BUT with the correct URL (cases/date-article name) which the user could then click on to create the article - this would then make the case have a useful name (instead of one they make up) and it will be easy to follow.
The only other solution I can think of is for someone to knock up a Javascript app that has an input box (like the one for tool2 for example) where the user enters the case name and hits enter and it gives them or takes them to the created article. What do you think of those 2 ideas? -- Errant(formerly tmorton166) 18:03, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Mmm, good points. Bots are still magical black boxes, to me. :3 So, I worked out a link which would do as you've described -- place it on a page, and it creates a link to an edit page as described above, for a MedCab case page named for the article, dated for when the template is added. See an example here (permalink). Before you ask: yes, it ignores "Talk:". Then put the link into a template, and it's good to go and be placed wherever. This method would have pros and cons. Pro, by default it notifies everyone that a request has been made, achieves an objective case name, and is a foolproof link to the right case page. Con, it involves some of the template-placing-and-hopping-around that I think we wanted to avoid, from before... though, at least it'd be significantly easier, this time. As far as naming such a template (if we make it), how about {{medcab request}}? Something very simple and memorable. Luna Santin 21:53, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately what you coded doesn't work - even in the template namespace (see below) so we may need a diferent solution. Bear with me for a bit whilst I try and work it out...

See where this link points (subst from Template:Mediation_request which I created) to see why it doesn't work -> -- Errant(formerly tmorton166) 22:10, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Forget all that :D I am a fool and forgot to subst: it!!! So I created the template with the name suggested (see blow) take a look and see what you think. We need to work out the wording (all that is just 'placeholding' for now) but it is a start right? I think if we do things this way then it will be the easiest for the user and make the bot more useful.

Comment This article or section (Mediation Cabal) is currently subject of a mediation being resolved by medcab, the submission is located here. We ask that you dont edit the sections under discussion until a consensus has been reached. Of course you are welcome to join in with your opinion.
If you have placed this template here please follow this link to create your mediation submission


Anyway hi ericj I was under the impression that you weren't developing the bot anymore so it's good to see you might still be around. Sorry if we seemed a little ungrateful for your efforts. I'll take a look at the source code and see if I can perhaps do some work on it :D -- Errant(formerly tmorton166) 22:22, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I may have misinterpreted you guys slightly, but the comments above are exactly how the system used to work. A user placed {{subst:medcab1}} on the case page, clicked the link and substed {{subst:medcab2}}, saved the page, and then filled out the answers. Cowman109 22:53, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

This method is similar, but (I think) much simpler for the end user. Steps would be as follows:
  1. Place the request template on the article's talk page. The case is named and dated for them.
  2. Follow the edit link in the newly placed template. Template:Medcab2 will already have been substed, saving a step, and we can have any special instructions we like appear in the text above the editbox (currently, the contents of Template:Medcab).
  3. Fill out the form, save the changes.
Saves a few steps from the old version; I think it's almost foolproof, with some more work. We can of course change the details as much as we like, it's all a work in progress, just the general thrust of things could be along those lines. I'd encourage you to go ahead and click the edit link, if you haven't already; don't save the changes, but just to see what any user posting a case would be presented with. I like it. Luna Santin 23:08, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


I second that! I see what you are4 saying Cowman; about going back to the old method. But although using an input box makes things easier in principle the limitations of it make it (IMO) more complicated than original. That said the way it was done before was not the easiest method. This way may make things easier. As luna Satin says lets see where this goes and what everyone thinks / contributes and maybe it will become a suitable replacement (temporary or otherwise) for a more elegant solution. -- Errant(formerly tmorton166) 00:45, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

With the system shown above (the template with a link), it's possible to do the bot as I originally intended. We just need the status template (template & usage example) to be included in the template that is subst'd when creating the case. It'll also set the category for the page so it can be placed in the correct spot on the case list. So, all I would need to do is add the function so it reads the case page and places the mediator, comment, and any other information deemed worthy on the case list page. Ericj 21:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Mediator handling case

I really miss being able to scan the list on one page and see who is handling which case. Can this be put back? --Ideogram 13:26, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Hopefully we are getting a nice little template to put on the case page that will let the bot automatically update the current mediators and a nice little comment to the case. I'm not quite sure how that's coming yet, though. Cowman109 15:55, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Tutorial?

Is there a Mediation how-to for those finding themselves drafted as a mediator? CovenantD 21:00, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Mediation_Cabal/Suggestions_for_mediators you mean? Cowman109 21:01, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
What Cowman said! But also, you may want to look over some cases in progress being mediated by others for ideas. What works for one may not work for another, but you should find your style fairly easily. I have found that most involved parties are just glad someone is there to help - they are usually patient with little glitches along the way if they know you mean well. --Aguerriero (talk) 21:04, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for the link. Is there a list of Cabal subpages somewhere, especially the forementioned case pages? I'm relatively new to Wiki (3 months) and I'm still learning my way around, so there might be a simple nav guide around I just haven't seen. CovenantD 21:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Duh. I just got to Cowman109's edits to the MedCab page. Nevermind. CovenantD 21:28, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Advice requested

I am on my second mediation case, ongoing at Rainbow Gathering and its talk page. While three editors have participated in the mediation process, a fourth "anonymous" editor who I cannot identify continues to disrupt the page and has not participated. Does anyone have any advice on how to handle this? --Aguerriero (talk) 13:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

The fact that they are editing the section under dispute suggests that it is someone involved already - maybe one of the other participators in the mediation. You need to sort it out quickly by possibly starting again. By this I mean Start a new section on the talk page, set out the current status of the issues and the progress that has been made and then say regardless of what happens over the article the important issue is getting a decision made between them.
As to the article there is very little that could be done, although if you know a friendly admin ask them to semi-protect the page so anon editors can't log in.
DOnt let them rest control of the mediatioon from you. Although you are there only to guide the process you have to make sure they dont get sidetracked into an edit war. Try to ignore the edits being made and advise the otehr editors to do the same.
Finally watch lookingheart, he doesn;t seem to be very civil and may be getting quite angry (from what he is writing) in that state he could ruin all that the three of you have managed to progress so far.
Good luck and well done for asking! -- Errant(formerly tmorton166) 14:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
See if it meets Misplaced Pages:Abuse Reports criteria.Geo. 20:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
If you think its one of the three editors who is in doing it, you might want to ask for a check user. Or even make note of the ip addy of the anon, and look to see if anyone related to the dispute left a message unsigned, revealing their ip addy. I wouldnt right out accuse anyone of being a sock, but it wouldnt help to dig into contributions if the problem persists. SynergeticMaggot 20:28, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice everyone. I believe having the page semi-protected has brought the situation a little more under control. I took Errant's advice and "started over" in a new section, and we are making headway. --Aguerriero (talk) 23:24, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


Other advice requested

I am working on an article that I think has problems. It is an article on which there is some heat, perhaps because the topic involves both religion and disputes about religion. To my eye, it appears that the page has been sort of taken over by one particular editor who takes one side and reverts or eliminates other sides. He repeatedly argues that NPOV does not fully apply to this article and so his reverts are appropriate. He has sort of taken ownership (WP:OWN) of the article. I am concerned that editing will be difficult. I am going to try but he has already pretty much agreed to dismiss anything I do or say as biased (I have been putting my research on the talk page for comment but I have not made any changes to the article. Just my research bothers him).

My question is as follows: What happens when an editor owns an article, rejects NPOV and refuses to accept other editors except on the margins? How can you folks help, if I need it (I am going to try to go forward on my own and only seek help if I really need it). --Anon 64 20:17, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages encourages as much participation and input as possible. If you are having a problem with one editor, the best solution is to ask more people for their opinions. You may wish to appeal to a broader community for input by asking at the Village pump, posting a Wikiquette alert, or filing a Request for Comment. --Ideogram 20:21, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. I have to admit, I am a bit concerned that a wide announcment will attract people on both sides who want to argue over the issues rather than meet in concensus. But I will try to follow the advice you have given and see what happens. If it does not go well, it will be a lesson!
This gets to something that sort of concerns me about wikipedia. It seems that MOST people who are really active and have successful wide-ranging lives, often will not bother to deal with such a thing as wikipedia. I do not know this for sure and I do not mean to cast aspersions on myself or other editors, but isn't our community likely to attract the oddballs MORE than the normal? In that case, isn't democracy here sort of a problem? Just a thought. I don't think we have any other choice.
Misplaced Pages does attract a large number of nutcases (although mentioning any by name would violate no personal attacks). However, Misplaced Pages is not a democracy for that reason (among others). We base our decisions on neutral point of view, verifiability, and no original research. The community enforces these principles through consensus and group decision-making. If one or a few editors defy these principles the community can stop them, up to and including official sanctions. --Ideogram 21:29, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Interestingly enough, while I was seeking your advice, the editor in question promised to take anything he disagrees with and move it to another page. In short, he is already promising an edit war . This concerns me. The article that I am referring to is Exmormonism and on the talk page you will see the brewing problem.

An Example (I think)

It was not mediation, but there is an example (I think) of a highly divided group coming to a reasonable concensus on an article. Look at the list of archives on the talk page. We went around and around and around -- but the final article was MUCH better when many people contributed and worked together. It is really an inspiration to me. The article is Homosexual agenda. --Anon 64 21:05, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I think you will find that when people agree on basic principles including allowing everyone to have their say and making good faith efforts to reach consensus the system works surprisingly well. --Ideogram 21:31, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Closed case

As far as I can tell, Zeraeph closed (himself) a mediation that was opened by me. <sigh> Sandy 02:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, since this is an informal process, we can't force anyone to go with a mediation, and once someone withdraws, that's pretty much all that can be done. Best wishes to both of you. I was really tempted to remove my comments, but I'll just strike them out. CQJ 02:17, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks: I just thought I should let you know why it fell off the list. Sandy 02:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Generally it should only be closed by the volunteering mediator, though exceptions are obvious if a dispute is clearly over and the mediator has not made a reply - those who are actually involved in the dispute should probably refrain from handling that sort of procedural stuff in the interest of making sure everything gets looked at thoroughly. Cases are not over, though, if one disputant refuses to get involved. You can always give suggestions to the other disputant on where to go further or work out something with them - remember that we can be flexible in our methods and there isn't necessarily one way to go about doing things. Cowman109 03:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
In this case, no one had formally taken the case yet, so ... Sandy 04:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Wait - I'm a tad confused now. Are the details of that case already being discussed in another case that the one who closed it withdrew? And what did I just say.. do you mind clarifying what is going on a bit, please? Cowman109 04:13, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, now that you mention it, I couldn't figure out what you were saying :-) There were 4 different things going on. Zeraeph first went to AN/I, where he was told he should come to MedCab. Then he opened a mediation, I copied the AN/I comments to the mediation, and he rejected the (his own) mediation, which was closed by Kylu, while I was asking the mediator (Torinir) not to close it yet. Then Zereaph went to AN/I again. Then I opened a mediation, which Zeraeph closed (himself). So, there are two mediations; his own, which he rejected, and mine, which he closed himself, and which had never been accepted by a mediator. The first mediation has copies of the AN/I entries. It was quite a mess, and I do regret that the first mediation was closed so quickly. Sandy 04:31, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
To correct misrepresentations in the above statement here is the actual state of the WP:ANI 3 minutes before I opened . I had not actually read it at that point. Here is the last state before archival. Do you see anyone telling me I "should come to Medcab" in either? Thought not.
Here is the quote: "Hi, if you have an ongoing dispute, please take it though the dispute resolution process. I can heartily recommend the mediation cabal. Please do not post any more to the WP:AN/I on this subject." I do hope you will decide to use the mediation, and I will request that it be left open a few days longer. Regards, Sandy 13:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
On my talk page (not WP:ANIas User:SandyGeorgia stated) and 17 hours after I opened , which rather invalidates the statement "where he was told he should come to MedCab. Then he opened a mediation" made by User:SandyGeorgia along with all it's underlying implications and connotations. As I said, I have a life, I don't have all day to unpick these vexatious confabulations. --Zeraeph 14:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
I made my own choice, independent of anyone, to try and seek mediation. However when I saw the nature of User:SandyGeorgia's responses I realises Medcab would be a serious mistake, in this instance, not least because if anything said by, or about, someone does not suit User:SandyGeorgia she is certain to misrepresent it somewhere, sooner or later, and there will always be people who do not bother to check and just believe her, until the resulting distortion does not resemble the facts in the slightest. I have a life and I honestly do not have the time to spend trawling histories to check, and usually debunk, every statement User:SandyGeorgia makes so that any discussion with her will be about facts, rather than fiction of her own concocting, which is the only alternative.
I accept my limitations, I know I do not have the power to persuade anyone to change this type of behavior pattern, whatever I do. But on the other hand I have no intention of brushing it under the carpet, particularlywhen I find myself the focus of it.
I think Medcab is a good thing, but this situation is honestly unsuited to this issue, I should never have brought it here, and will not participate...though I do think maybe someone should point out to User:SandyGeorgia that when somebody says something like "I will not participate", it isn't always a ploy, or a gambit, or a move in a game, sometimes they just mean "I will not participate". --Zeraeph 09:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Ah, alright then. Well, he wanted his own case closed, which is fine as he submitted it, though I believe yours should remain open assuming you still want help looked at (though he doesn't need to participate, as he has clearly expressed that he does not to). There is nothing stopping us from working with a single disputant in a case to see if we can help just a bit. I will put your case back in the new cases section and leave a note. Cowman109 04:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
I do appreciate having something in place in case he comes to the table. And, I'm going to need some assistance if he continues posting allegations to AN/I. Thanks, Sandy 05:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC)