Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jbolden1517 (talk | contribs) at 22:54, 5 June 2006 (→Participants: pudgenet out fror now). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Mediation with a stick

My last attempt at mediation failed, primarily because people were not willing to participate in mediation nor to honor the outcomes of mediation. I am not here as an editor and I am not going to join in the battle, I’m here to resolve the battle and help you all to create a great Perl article. That is an article that describes Perl in a way that is accurate, informative and neutral in its point of view. Because of previous non cooperation this requires a partial escalation. This article is now under a mediation process and the ground rules under which it is administrated will change.

1. I will establish mediation discussions on subsection of the article. Only people participating in the mediation process can have input on those areas of the article. They can still however edit other areas of the article. That is it is not mandatory that you participate but if you don't participate you waive your rights to have input on sections put under mediation. As mediation progress this may become a larger and larger percentage of the article.
2. Any subsection of the article under mediation cannot be edited directly, unless I otherwise indicate. I will perform the edits. My edits to the main article are never reverted. Reverting or undoing an edit of mine will result in either a warning or a block. Repeated violations will result in a ban from editing the Perl article for the duration of the mediation process.
3. Durin (talk · contribs) will be my administrative supervisor, if at any point you consider my actions either grossly unfair or immoral you may appeal to him. You may not under any circumstances take direct action to reverse my actions.
4. Mediation participants cannot complain about one another's behavior. I will take care of all disciplinary problems. They are free to disagree about content written by another editor in a respectful manner.
5. In the beginnign editors will talk to me, I'll be mediating the conversation as well as the content. As time progresses I will move further and further away from controlling the debate.

jbolden1517 13:00, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Participants

Please indicate next to your name whether you would like to be involved or not. If you are not on the list and would like to be please add yourself.

• Harmil
• Imroy
• Steve p
• Scarpia - we pretty much had concensus before, but the mediator didn't like it. I'd like to respectfully request another mediator.
• Pudge - no
• RevRagnarok - Will try to be involved but agree with others that this seems to be tail chasing.
• -Barry- - Would like to be involved
• User:Swmcd - I want to be involved.

Objections/clarifications

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

reply to Scarpia

Scarpia - we pretty much had concensus before, but the mediator didn't like it. I'd like to respectfully request another mediator. Reasonable request, here is the proper procedure.

1. I can be replaced by any member of the mediation committee (which is the policy for escalation of mediation). Basically you file an application and if they accept the case I'm out.
2. Alternately you can ask Durin to dismiss me for for cause (I'm assuming either incompetence or bias is the charge), in which case it remains with the cabal but not with me.

However, while you are unlikely to believe me, given Durin's previous intervention, my comments and Simetrical comments on the RFC its unlikely this objection regarding consensus is going to be accepted. You have had 3 experienced and independent people with no history of intervention on Perl indicate they were unhappy with the consensus you all had established. "Upper management" is not going to want to reestablish this consensus. However, success will be almost impossible unless you do this as a team. Moreover it can take a month or more for a mediation committee member to be assigned even if the case is accepted which is going to take a long time without clarity. If you would like I can set up a page for you to discuss with the rest of the pro Perl group whether they want to move for a replacement and if so which of the two methods they would like to use. Let me know. jbolden1517 17:16, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Reply to Barry

In addition, I believe he should have been banned for other things. Therefore, I support the deletion of his posts to this page and I suggest he find another outlet for his complaints. -Barry- 20:21, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Barry. I've added another rule to address this issue. jbolden1517 20:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Objection to jbolden

You are unfit to mediate this discussion. Contrary to Wikimedia:Mediation policy, you assert that compliance is required in this article; in the original mediation article, you advocated a position in the dispute; and you claimed agreement when there was none, thereby violating the notion that consensus is required.

All of those things are clearly against mediation policy, which states that you may only suggest, not impose; that you may not advocate a position in dispute; and that you are supposed to find consensus, not declare it. Granted, you may simply have been confused, thinking that agreement of one person against Barry constituted agreement of everyone else, but when you were made aware the dispute was not resolved, you did not retract, even when Barry started complaining that his edits to the effect of your decision had been reverted: they were reverted because you were incorrect, there was no agreement, despite your claim to the contrary.

And then you removed my objections about all this, falsely asserting that I was trolling.

I state again: if this is not the proper forum for objections to the process, as you clearly stated that it is, then you should explain that further. Or you should respond directly to my objections. That you keep removing my objections, which contain a clear record of misdeeds, only demonstrates that you are not acting in good faith. And removing my objections, which do not violate any ground rules set up, nor any Misplaced Pages policy, but then retaining Barry's comments, quoting them yourself, when they constitute a direct violation of one of your ground rules, only highlight that even more.

I am doing my best to ensure the Perl article is a good one, and I think you are a terrible danger to that, worse than Barry, because with him, at least we can forge a reasonable consensus, but you have a demonstrated record of bypassing consensus and dictating content. And it is my right to object, and to do it here. If this were not true, surely you or Durin would have informed me of this by now, pointing me to some page that shows me where I've gone wrong, and you would have used it as evidence to get me blocked, as you are trying to do. Simply calling me a troll and removing my objections is insufficient: quite clearly, the record shows there is a real problem here, and it won't go away just by you removing my objections from the Objections section. Pudge 20:55, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I replied to your first objection. Since then you have been unacceptably rude. This one is a little better so I will attempt again.

1. If you object to me as a mediator I've informed you about the appropriate methods of complaint are. You either discuss with Durin or ask the mediation committee to take the case. I will set up a seperate page for either of these two purposes. I will not have this discussion interfere with the mediation process.
2. If you object to the rules I am impossing you can take it up with Durin. If he rules in my favor then you can file RFC against me, him or both. If he rules in your favor I'm gone.
3. I will happy accept polite, reasonable discussions to make minor modifications to the rules as I've established them. This is meant to be a mediated process and if everyone would like some changes that's fine.
   1. A complete overhaul is out of scope.
   2. You are free to establish your own subpage in User Talk:Pudgenet outlining all the reasons why a complete overhaul should occur and I will allow a link to it.
   3. I will not allow you to interfere with productive discussion about the mediation process by objecting to whether there should be such a process. Mediation is one of the two established process prior to arbitration. My primary obligation is to either resolve the underlying issues or create a situation where the issues are clear enough for simple arbitration. Right now this case is far too murky to go to arbitration.
4. Comments on talk pages that contain both insults and content can be deleted, and will be.
5. And frankly the subcase which is getting closest to being ready to go to arbitration is a ban on Pudgenet for interfering in a mediation process.
6. For the last 6 hours you have gotten a taste of what Barry has had to put with for 3 months. I hope this has given you some insight as to why the people who have examined this case found this behavior unacceptable.

jbolden1517 21:26, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

You did not address my first objection. You said you can enforce our agreements, but that is not what you are doing: rather, you are enforcing the process itself, which you are expressly forbidden from doing. You are locking the page *because*, in your words, we would not cooperate with you.

I was not unacceptably rude on this page, that I can tell. I raised perfectly valid objections. Do you find me saying you are wholly unfit to be mediator uancceptably rude? Because that's the only thing I can guess you are referring to, and if that is what you mean, you are incorrect: that is not rude, but a reasonable statement of opinion. If you took it personally, that's only more evidence of your unfitness. As to the rest:

1. No one ever stated or implied that my objection to you as mediator was not appropriate for this page. You made it clear you did not like my objections by removing them, but that in itself is not a statement that the objections should not be here. This is the first you've stated it, so don't blame me for you lack of communication.
2. This is a joke. Durin is not here to mediate every little thing, as he made clear to you. And that you are threatening to quit if you do not get your way is absolute proof, if any more is needed, that you simply are unfit to mediate.
3. Again, you never stated ANY of this before. These are all new rules, new statements, that you are holding me responsible for ex post facto. That's quite unfair and unreasonable. Hold me accountable for rules that are stated up front, but not for ones in your head that you do not communicate.
4. That's irrelevant to this discussion. Skipping.
5. Again, you never identified before just now that any of this was interference. Indeed, when I asked before if this was considered interference -- objecting to the process itself -- I was told that no, it was not, by Durin. He said, "interference with the mediation process is a form of trolling." I objected, saying, that is not reasonable if by "interference" you include voicing concerns, and he said no, he did not. And now you are telling me that it is. You really want to take me to arbitration for abiding by the word of the person you brought in to help out?
6. I thought personal attacks were off-limits? Violating your *own rules* now?

On a more positive note, thanks for not deleting me this time and actually explaining. I am not sure if that is, exactly, a step in the right direction, but it's something.

Pudge 22:09, 5 June 2006 (UTC)