Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 10:10, 29 October 2009

The Mediation Cabal
Main page	Current cases	Suggestions
Central discussion

		Archives	2005 Jan - Dec 2006 Jan - May | May - Jul | Aug - Dec 2007 Jan - Feb | Mar - Apr | May - Aug | Sep - Dec 2008 Jan - Mar | Apr - Jun | Jul - Sep| Oct - Dec 2009 Jan - Mar | Apr-Jun | Jul-Dec 2010 Jan - Apr | May - Aug | Sep-Dec 2011 Jan - Dec 2012 Jan - Dec

Note to new cabalists

Often it will appear a case is stalled or inactive, since requesters forget to watchlist the casepage. Before closing a case as inactive, go to the talk page of the article in dispute and remind everyone of the MedCab request. Thanks! Xavexgoem (talk) 16:27, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Mediator meetings

See the village pump here for a proposal. Please comment and revise! Geoff Plourde (talk) 07:18, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Dead template

On Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution requests I read "Add {{subst:medcab-request}} to the section of the disputed article's talk page that requires mediation and save the page." It seems to me that no such template exists. So what should be done? And could sb change this text? Debresser (talk) 21:40, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Oops... there are so many templates and instructions all over the place that it's easy to lose track. Anyway, go to our mainpage and request from there. Xavexgoem (talk) 01:25, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

What mainpage do you mean? Isn't this the mainpage's discussion page? Debresser (talk) 01:35, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

There seems to be a little confusion, but I can fix up the issue. Steve Crossin 01:53, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Xav has already done it. Well aren't I slow? Steve Crossin 01:58, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Debresser, at the top of the talk page there's a link to "mainpage" above "central discussion" (or something) - I just mean the main project page... Alternately, I could just link you it :-p WP:MEDCAB Xavexgoem (talk) 02:21, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

KISS and make up? --Kim Bruning (talk) 18:25, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Procedural questions

See Misplaced Pages talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-09-15/Polish-Ukrainian WWII disputes. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:11, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I should be more clear; I'll do so here. I'll be honest: What I'm seeing in this dispute is a wiki-lawyering campaign over WP:PLACE. This, as you know, is very common (it's expected, and the culture of the project is such that it's basically legitimate), and the best I can do is disabuse some of the participants from worrying overmuch about rules, especially since it's so likely to be a substitute for substantive debate, and as a way of avoiding a discussion on the various point-of-views held by the editors over yonder (while still managing to keep one POV steady via enforcement of the guideline).

I've moved the discussion towards Vecrumba's proposal, since at least there there's some compromise territory. But I have to keep both threads open. What you could do is clarify what you think the guideline means in spirit without presenting it objectively, if that makes sense. I fear we'll be running around in circles for a while, here, until I find the proper opening.

Ah, the life of a mediator :-) Xavexgoem (talk) 23:45, 16 September 2009 (UTC) Also: I don't think I've answered your concerns? Would you be more clear about what the procedural problems are, in your opinion?

Um, I think that's the wrong mediation :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:50, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

...ah, the life of a mediator! *sigh* :) Xavexgoem (talk) 23:54, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Including more information about what types of cases we take?

Lately I've seen quite a few cases opened over simple edit warring, where what they really want is WP:AN3. Other cases are completely user conduct-based, and better suited to WP:ANI, as we don't impose judgments or sanctions on editors. One other thing i've noticed is that the noticeboards all have information at the top about where to take different kinds of disputes, so you don't post to the wrong one. Should we have a paragraph about what we do (i.e. that this is a voluntary process and parties must consent, etc) and where to take complaints over edit warring or user conduct? The Wordsmith_{(formerly known as Firestorm)} 19:28, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

We do have the paragraph that states we don't impose sanctions. But your point regarding clarity is well-taken. I agree that it may be beneficial to state explicitly and noticeably on this page that user conduct issues are not well-suited for mediation. Perhaps some petitioners for mediation do not fully realize this. —Matheuler 20:00, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I think the things for us that are most important to state up front are:

• Informal/no sanctions
• Voluntary/all parties must consent
• not for simple vandalism, edit wars, or user conduct

If we do all that, we'll probably cut in half the number of cases that need to be declined with parties pointed in the direction of a noticeboard. The Wordsmith_{(formerly known as Firestorm)} 02:44, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

On the one hand, it does make sense to consolidate the opening paragraphs of the MEDCAB main page in a way that expresses the points you mentioned (especially #3). At the same time, I suppose it is not such a terrible thing for an experienced editor to point the participants to the correct noticeboard. It probably only takes a few minutes of our time. But, I do agree, on the whole, with the reworded intro idea. Do you have a proposed text? —Matheuler 02:49, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Haven't come up with one yet, but if this gains consensus i'm willing to write it up. The Wordsmith_{(formerly known as Firestorm)} 02:57, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I think it's important to leave some wiggle-room. Often you have to get past a conduct dispute before you can tackle a content dispute. It's an immensely important skill for mediators to have. But that's IMO... personally, I'd rather some cases were brought over here instead of having them at AN/I. And it's within the mediator's prerogative to bring folks to AN/I, etc., if they're being truly disastrous. I suppose my principal worry is that there will be a content dispute that medcab can solve, but it's behind a thin mask of incivility... AN/I can often solve that, but often at the cost of compounding the content dispute. Xavexgoem (talk) 06:28, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Of course, that's a legitimate concern. I'm sure we could play around with the wording to get a good balance, i.e. "We can help with issues that are primarily content disputes. For simple user conduct disputes or edit wars, please see the appropriate noticeboard." The Wordsmith_{(formerly known as Firestorm)} 13:39, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

The second sentence is good. Figuring out what's primarily a content dispute and what's primarily a conduct dispute is something I'd like mediators to decide, if anything because they're better at it. Xavexgoem (talk) 13:49, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I have just created this article, how do I add it to the list? http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2009-09-30/lightworker —Preceding unsigned comment added by Outelligent (talk • contribs) 23:21, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

The bot will add it to the list. Which reminds me, I need to document that part of the process ;-) Xavexgoem (talk) 23:25, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Membership

Hi. How do I join? I would like to help mediate (articles that I don't edit), and also I have a couple articles that might need mediation in the future (1-2 of those that I edit). Dc76\ 23:33, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Dc76, glad to have you aboard. To answer your question, you add a user box, such as {{user medcab}} to your user page. PhilKnight (talk) 19:18, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to become a mediation cabal mediator but currently my userpage redirects to Superman and I can't for the life of me put down that ego. Can I still join? --0nonanon0 (talk) 22:11, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, once we decide to adopt a case do I just add myself as an additioal mediator for that article on the MEDCAB page? --0nonanon0 (talk) 22:15, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

your sig (three tildes, usually) to the |mediator= bit in the template at the top of the casepage. Although if you want to be an additional mediator (e.g., someone has already picked it up), you'll want to talk to the initial mediator first. Xavexgoem (talk) 22:22, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

An IRC forum for discussion

I'm happy to see that MedCab has so many more mediators active right now. I was losing optimism for our project, when our backlog of new cases numbered into the teens and we seemed to have very few mediators left. I am very happy to see our recent success and progress. As I consider mediation, and the mediation cabal in particular, as being at the forefront of WP's dispute resolution process, this is very good news indeed.

Therefore, I am starting a discussion on our IRC channel between mediators and any on-lookers to discuss our individual mediations, stories, strategies, and how MedCab and dispute resolution are working as a whole. I plan for it to be held sometime this month (October). If you are interested in having an open discussion and more free communication between DR-oriented Wikipedians, then please reply to this thread so we can organize this properly.

Our IRC forum is #wikipedia-medcab on the freenode network.

Thank you, and I await your reply. Xavexgoem (talk) 00:15, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

• As long as it's a time somewhat convenient for me, I'll be there. Steven Zhang 00:19, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
• \o/ When's the exact time? --Kim Bruning (talk) 03:42, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
• I'm available as well. The Wordsmith_{(formerly known as Firestorm)} 04:04, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Aw, three people? What to do, what to do... Xavexgoem (talk) 17:16, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I think the forum is a great idea and appreciate the initiative. I personally don't frequent IRC, so my lack of support is not based on it being a bad idea, just on personal preference. —Finn Casey * * * 19:44, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Zeno's Paradoxes?

The mediator field on the Zeno's Paradoxes discussion is blank. Is there a mediator? I just thought I would check, as a mediation without a mediator is rather odd. —Finn Casey * * * 01:07, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. Xavexgoem (talk) 22:05, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I would have taken it myself on but the case I'm currently mediating is starting to get rolling, and I didn't want to get distracted. —Finn Casey * * * 00:58, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Gibraltar

Could we please have the case on Gibraltar re-opened please, User:Irbisgreif has prematurely closed the case claiming that one editor has withdrawn from mediation and that editors had lost confidence in the mediation process. Editors had in fact expressed doubts about User:Irbisgreif's role as mediatior and no one has withdrawn from the case, though one editor has gotten frustrated with the lack of direction. The only thing expressed about mediation was a consideration for requesting a new mediator. Justin talk 09:09, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Justin himself is the one who used the fact that this was my first case to attack me. Gibnews (a different editor) is no longer co-operating with mediation. I advise Mediators to avoid this case. ---Irbisgreif-(talk | e-mail)-(contribs) 10:10, 29 October 2009 (UTC)