Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Pudgenet (talk | contribs) at 20:55, 5 June 2006 (→Objections/clarifications: renew objections, as no reason was given for their removal; renew request for explanation of removal). 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
• 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)