Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Prem Rawat 3

moved from case page

1. Sure. You acknowledge that you accept that your viewpoint will be expressed by Beback, and in doing so cannot claim that you weren't part of the mediation and therefore don't consider the process useful? Daniel (talk) 05:18, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

1. I am confident that Jossi would wish to be involved in the process going forward. Daniel (talk) 05:18, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

1. He is free to note his agreement and join as he sees fit. Daniel (talk) 05:18, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

1. Per my comment about Rainer P. Daniel (talk) 05:18, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

   Francis: If you (or any other current party, for that matter) wish to put forward any editors' names to be considered for invitation to the Mediation, please do feel free.

   I have already been requested that Savlonn (talk · contribs) be invited to this Mediation, so we may wish to start discussing him first.

   Regards, Anthøny 10:06, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I accepted yesterday on the previous page, and my acceptance has been transferred here. I look forward to participating. Savlonn (talk) 13:00, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

• Anthony, I mentioned the bit about Savlonn to Daniel, and he added Savlonn to the current parties. He might still need to be notified that he's been added as a party. On another note, I've decided I'll continue on Wikipedia to fulfill my role in this case, whatever that role may be. If you need my help, please do ask. Best, Steve Crossin ^Contact/₂₄ 10:39, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

• I'm sorry Steve, but this is just not acceptable to me anymore. I fully understand the difficulties you may be having personally -- everyody has personal difficulties, however, it's not fair to the editors on this case for you to to be in a constant state of flux based upon your personal problems and problems you may be having with Wikipedia. Yesterday, you said you were going on a long break and this morning when I came online I saw on your userpage that you had quit yet again with another message you are on a long Wiki break. Two hours later I came to this page and you've changed your mind again and have decided to come back. I signed onto formal mediation based on your promise of consistent participation as a mediator. It's simply not reasonable for you or the MedCom to expect the involved editors on this case to be sign on to formal mediation when we don't know from day to day if we depend upon your consistent availablility. Whether it's your fault or not is immaterial. We need someone who can make a commitment and stick to it. Thanks. Sylviecyn (talk) 12:56, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
  • My personal difficulties are more severe than the everyday difficulties most experience in their day to day life. I am dealing with them as appropriate. My role in this case is whatever AGK wants it to be. It will likely be as an advisor. I'd prefer to not discuss my personal issues on wikipedia. The people that have been told (the select few) have all been understanding. You may email me if you still have concerns. Best, Steve Crossin ^Contact/₂₄ 13:11, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Steve, I'm sorry your life is in serious crisis right now. I know what that's like. But, with all due respect, it's still not fair to those of us trying to make progress here, when your availablility isn't certain. I've happy with your efforts and if you want to help out on an as-available basis, but your frequent reports of being in and out, back and forth doesn't help to stabilize this mediation, whether it's formal or informal. I've had many, many serious difficulties and crises in my own life, too, so I can completely understand the ups and downs of living through them, and I send all my best and good thoughts are with you at this time. That said, I want to caution you against giving out too much information to online people, even by email, unless you have enough information about such a correspondent to trust them with personal details about yourself and family. I've been there and done that, too. Bests. Sylviecyn (talk) 15:19, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
      • @Sylviecyn: Steve's activity won't affect the case -- I've taken over as the mediator. It's not a case of when Steve is absent, the case suffers; rather, when Steve is able to be here, the case will benefit. I for one don't think we need to worry about the implication of his absence on this case: simply let him enjoy every Wikibreak he chooses to go on. Anthøny 11:54, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
• You don't need to caution me, the two of us are aware. I'd like to stay on topic, and I will help out on an as-available basis. I apologise if this has destabilised the case. Regards, Steve Crossin ^Contact/₂₄ 15:23, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
• Again, I give you all my warmest and best wishes and thoughts. That's the most important thing right now -- you and yours, not this article or case. When and if you have time, I welcome your involvement and participation.  :) Sylviecyn (talk) 17:20, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
• I'll forward those onto Mel, as she's really the one who needs them. And there's a ribbon. But this has gone seriously off topic :). Anything further related to, er, this ^, can go on my talk page. I'll be around when I can be. Steve Crossin ^Contact/₂₄ 17:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
• I misunderstood you. I've been an active advocate against sexual assualt and harassment against women and children for a couple of decades, but the Teal Ribbon in the U.S. signifies advocacy for finding a cure for ovarian cancer. Sorry for the misunderstanding. Still, that doesn't minimize what happened to Mel, here.  :) Sylviecyn (talk) 19:20, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Delegation

In the spirit of expediting the mediation process, I hereby delegate my involvement in the mediation to User:Jayen466, and acknowledge and accept that my viewpoints will be expressed by Jayen, and in doing so I cannot claim that I was not part of the mediation or later challenge any consensus reached during its process. If during the mediation I see the need to express a concern, provide new sources, or comment, I will do this through Jayen. This, of course, if Jayen would accept this role. Please note that I do not know who Jayen is IRL, and that my choice is based on the observation that he/she is a judicious editor and one that is able to build bridges and form consensus. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:29, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I read above that my delegation may trigger a disagree from Francis. I would like to explore the reasons why this would be the case... as you all know I have been involved in these articles for many years now, and the articles are yet not stable, so I acknowledge that maybe others will have a better chance to achieve that, hence my stepping aside and choosing a delegate and declaring my intentions to abide by the results of this mediation. Hope that this can accepted in good faith. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:38, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

• Your statements are moot because a couple of us didn't sign up for formal mediation with representation. Let's wait and see what the mediator(s) recommend. I simply won't assign myself to anyone but myself, because as a rule, I don't give up my autonomy, anywhere, anytime. I'm not a joiner anymore. I thought that was clear. Sylviecyn (talk) 17:33, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
• No one is obliged to choose a delegate. That is an option that some editors may chose, which is what I have declared above. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:03, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
  • As I said to Sylviecyn below, I'm still pondering on which styles of Mediation to adopt for this case. One option is to have each general viewpoint be represented by one "spokesperson", with he or she being the only editor permitted to communicate the consensus of each viewpoint (what the spokesperson is required to say is decided by each editor party to the respective viewpoint). I must stress that such a model as not been adopted, and I do not wish to see parties organising themselves into "sides" at this moment. Jossi has explained to me his situation in private, and I am permitting he and Jayen to work with the delegation model on their own. That is to say, an exception has been made for Jossi, further to my agreement as Mediator. Now, let's all just calm down and give this page a little room to breathe for a bit, yes? :-) If you have any comments or questions, I am willing to take them below. But, please: we'll have plenty of time to disagree soon enough! Regards, Anthøny 12:00, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Jossi and Anthony, I'm happy to accept the delegate role as discussed above. Jayen466 21:24, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
• Well, I'd like to know what the hell is going on and what approach is being taken. Anybody on the MEDCOM willing to respond???? Sylviecyn (talk) 19:24, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Be patient. Thing well get going soon enough. There's been a change of Mediator from Steve to I, so it really isn't possible for things to be "picked up where they left off" immediately. As per Will below: background reading, deciding on approaches, etc. takes some time. Anthøny 11:56, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I can give you the links for all the stuff that happened in my userspace. The "proposals" themself I've transcluded onto one page, User:Steve Crossin/Mediation/Archives/Prem Rawat. The associated talk pages need to be accessed seperately. If there`s anything I can help you with, please let me know. Best, Steve Crossin ^Contact/₂₄ 17:43, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

• It is very simply, really. Editors can chose to actively participate in the mediation process, or chose a delegate to represent their viewpoints. See Wikipedia:Mediation#Disputants ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:37, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
• Let's be patient. AGK indicated that he was going to review the past discussions, ArbCom case, and mediation pages. That'll take some time, I'm sure. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:41, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
• Thanks to Anthony and Will. I'll try to be patient. Thinking about this, I'd rather that extra time is taken for mediator(s) to familiarize themselves with the content and the involved editors before beginning. That said, I strongly don't recommend the representation route on this case because it is been so contentious based on factions and because of the history of myself and other editors having been continuously being labelled as a part of the so-called "anti-faction" which has included pretty bad ad hominem attacks. I also think having a representative mediation would foster more private conversations between parties which I think is a bad thing (for obvious reasons) with this nrm. I think negotiations need to be open and transparent. Therefore, please keep in mind that I'm not willing to formally assign myself to anyone to represent me and that's not likely to change in this century. I'm too old and set in my ways for that happy horsesh*t.  :) Thanks. Sylviecyn (talk) 18:05, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Questions for Mediator

If any parties have queries and/or suggestions, I am willing to accept them below. Anthøny 12:03, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Queries for Parties and Advisors (from Mediator)

Q: Francis has withdrawn as a party. In the opinion of the remaining parties, is it possible to continue without his presence? Regards, Anthøny 20:01, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Responses:

1. Sure, why not. He has delegated to Will Beback. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:12, 14 August 2008 (UTC) Given this and this, I am not sure I understand what is going on. I defer to AGK or Daniel. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:48, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
2. I don't think that delegation is still active. Note that Rumiton has also withdrawn.[1] The previous mediation required that we all agree to only make edits with consensus, and so it was important to include all active editors. It's not clear how this mediation will proceed, so the importance of including everybody is also unclear. Ultimately, it would appear to depend on two factors: whether the editors who aren't in mediation act disruptively during mediation, and whether they abide by agreements made in mediation between the rest of the active editors. I presume that whatever agreements we make would have the force of consensus, so one or two editors who disagree may not be enough to create a lack of consensus. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:47, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

   I'm placing the withdrawal of Rumiton aside, as my impression when he was removed was that he is an inactive editor (at present), who has only ever filled a minor role in this dispute. With regards to Francis, I'm not sure whether his withdrawal (it seems to me that that is what it is, rather than a disagreement) will force this Mediation to close. I will need to consult the Committee on this matter. Anthøny 21:02, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

   It seems to be a clear disagree to me rather than a withdrawal. Perhaps we should just ask him? Steve Crossin ^Contact/₂₄ 21:07, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

   I must disagree with Anthony's understanding of Rumiton's participation (which to be fair can be difficult to capture when attemping to get up to speed with more than a book's worth of discussion!) I consider myself to be the most minor contributor of the nominated participants, with Rumiton actively participating to a greater extent than myself until the close of the informal mediation. As such, I couldn't understand why the proposal for formal moderation was accepted and opened given that Rumition did not sign the proposal, which clearly states: If any party fails to sign, or if a party indicates they do not agree, then the mediation will be rejected. I am very keen for the mediation to proceed, but following due process is important. Savlonn (talk) 00:12, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

3. I'm not so sure how we could, or would, proceed here. Two major parties in this case has withdrawn, with Rumilton outright withdrawing, and Francis declining formal mediation altogether. The fact Francis declined would've probably been less of an issue if he deferred to Will, but this he's stated that this isn't the case. The mediation policy states that if a party declines the mediation, it can't be accepted. I'm not too sure what to do here. I suppose that if they were to abide by whatever agreement the mediation comes up with, then we should be OK, but there's no guarantees. Steve Crossin ^Contact/₂₄ 21:04, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
4. Francis' contributions have been vital to ensuring academic rigour, unless he is categorically saying that he intends to withdraw from editing the Rawat articles, which I hope is not the case, I can not see how the formal mediation can proceed. I do think that the whole 'delegation' issue is a stumbling block and given Jossi's long and from my perspective, unhelpful role in the Rawat articles, his choice now to choose Jayen as a 'front man' renders the proposed process doubly dubious. The only mediation that I'm prepared to participate in is one where those who are commited to editing the articles are either activly involved, or otherwise withdraw from editing altogether. If editors wish to have private arrangements with each other about discussion of content they are free to do so but to have 'recognised' representation for the convenience of individual editors will simply see old problems reproduced.--Nik Wright2 (talk) 09:00, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

All fair points, from everybody. The main problem I have is that it seems doubtful Francis is going to withdraw completely from editing the Prem Rawat subject area. If he disagrees to this Mediation, and yet continues to be a party to a content dispute (by maintaining disagreement over the issues of this case), I fail to see where we could go from here. One cannot disagree, yet refuse to talk about one's differences with others, in a collaborative encyclopedia: frankly, that's simply not how things work.

I am consulting with the Committee as to how to proceed (and specifically, if we are entitled to proceed further to Francis' withdrawal of his agreement), and will get back to everybody regarding this matter as soon as possible. This is certainly a stumbling block...

Anthøny 12:41, 15 August 2008 (UTC)