Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Mediation Committee/Archive/5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


I have a serious request

I really have serious problems. Please, is a mediator ready to listen to my problems and to help me? Sergeant Gerzi 15:32, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

If you would like to request the assistance of a Mediation Comittee mediator, please visit Requests for Mediation and follow the instructions provided. You can also visit dispute resolution for an overview of the DR process, or register your case for help from the AMA or the mediation cabal at Requests for AMA Assisstance and Requests for Med Cabal Assistance.
Cheers and regards,
Anthonycfc [T • C] 01:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Success stories

I've been browsing through old cases in order to find success stories of mediation, from which I could learn. I found four pages that displayed if a case was closed successfully: Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Archive of summaries and archives 21-23. From that, I extracted the following list of cases labelled as "sucessful":

It would help me if people could add to that list; maybe it could also be placed on the MedCom's front page. — Sebastian 04:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I just counted the cases that I had researched and came up with 99.
     summaries 54 
     arch. #21	15
     arch. #22	16	
     arch. #23	14
— Sebastian 03:41, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

New template for mediated cases
This article is currently under mediation. Please refrain from any edits that could be seen as controversial, unless you are participating in the mediation and following the agreed upon procedure.

For the mediation case, please see: [[{{{1}}}]].

I created a template to be placed on top of a mediated article: {{mediated}}. I meant it to replace {{ActiveDiscuss}} and {{POV}}, although I left out theCategory:NPOV disputes, because they must have over 6000 articles in that category already, so anything we can do to reduce it probably helps, and if a case is mediated, it is already getting attention.

I want it to be useful for both Mediation Cabale and Mediation Committee, so I left out any specific reference to either, but if someone likes to add that, maybe via an optional parameter, I'd be fine with that. — Sebastian 03:41, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not particularly fond of this, especially on article pages themselves, because neither the Mediation Committee nor the Mediation Cabal have the authority to order users not to edit an article, and certainly not to lock it down in the manner this template suggests. Articles in mediation should remain open to editing by all users; an agreement of the parties may prevent them from editing the article while they are in mediation, but it is by no means manditory or enforceable. This makes mediation results appear binding, which they are not. Essjay (Talk) 11:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
I respect your concern and changed the template so that it now contains the wording from {{ActiveDiscuss}}. See also New template for mediated cases. — Sebastian 22:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
I still do not think that this is a good idea. All references to mediation should, at the very least, remain on talk pages. Ral315 (talk) 22:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Why? I'm always cautious when I hear the word "should". (Off topic: My 3 year old nephew is really good at using this word. As in "You should not do your homework." I love him!) — Sebastian 23:38, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm, this template doesn't really make me feel more comfortable and happy about an article or situation. What do you think? --Kim Bruning 22:11, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Questions about relationship: Mediation Cabal <-> Mediation Committee.

Hello. It's been a while since I last posted on this page. Since that time, a lot of things have changed.

The original Mediation Cabal really is no more, with all of the previous members having moved on to other tasks. (One member is currently on the wikimedia board these days. :-) ). The current incarnation of the mediation cabal has a small core group of relatively experienced coordinators, and next to that has a large number of less experienced members. Sometimes experienced advisors and/or observers drop by to keep an eye on things.

I'd like to ask some questions as to whether the mediation cabal is meeting 3 key objectives
  1. Training new Mediators
  2. Offloading work
  3. Act as an emergency backup.
No comment. O:-) --Kim Bruning 00:18, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Training new mediators

One of the key design roles of the current incarnation of the mediation cabal is to train new mediators. I've heard of several cases where people with some amount of mediation cabal experience applied for mediation committee, but were refused.

  • Have there been any successful applications from mediation cabal people at all?
  • What problems were encountered with those mediation cabal members who failed?
  • How can these problems be addressed with these candidates, or with new candidates in future?
  • Are problems with candidates discussed with the mediation cabal coordinators, so that they can advise candidates better in future?

offloading work

Another key design role of the mediation cabal is to offload work from the mediation committee and other stations on the dispute resolution chain, by handling smaller cases and preventing them from growing any larger. If a mediation cabal member finds they cannot handle a case, (s)he is supposed to hand it off to a different station on the dispute resolution chain.

  • When cases are handed off to you, does this happen on time?
  • In what state are cases handed off to you? (Is it easy to pick up the case, and has the mediation cabal member helped you by setting things up so you can proceed easily, or are things generally a mess?)
  • If there are any problems with cases, how could a less experienced mediation cabal member ensure that such problems do not occur in their case in future?
  • Are problems with cases reported to the mediation cabal coordinators, so that they are aware of problems, and can advise members how to improve their behaviour in future?

Emergency backup

The most important traditional role of the mediation cabal is to be able to work as an emergency replacement for other elements of dispute resolution, should they fail. It is not nescesary for the mediation cabal to act as a perfect drop in replacement. It is merely nescesary that they can fill in the gap temporarily without making things worse at the least, and hopefully at least give people who are in disputes some amount of hope that their case will be dealt with at all.

  • The Mediation Cabal has fallen in for the Mediation Committee before, In your opinion, is the current incarnation of the Mediation Cabal still capable of doing so?
  • If so, why not? Could you name which deficiencies exist?
  • If there are deficiencies, how could these deficiencies be addressed in future?
  • If there are percieved deficiencies, are these deficiences reported to the Mediation Cabal coordinators, so that they can adjust the Mediation Cabal's behaviour in future?

I'll be using the answers to these questions to try to improve the performance of the Mediation Cabal, should that prove to be nescesary. Thanks very much to anyone who can help! :-)

--Kim Bruning 22:11, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

  • I've done my best to give some of my thoughts and replies. For convenience, I've added them in the middle of your post, under their respective questions. Also note that I'm now a former member, for what it's worth (officially emeritus), so you may wish to take what I say with a grain of salt. (And I also apologize for what you may perceive as stunningly uninformative answers, looking back on them... I've done my best, though, after a cursory glance. :-) ) Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 01:33, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Thank you very much! I'd love to hear more from yourself or from other people. I'm especially interested in how things can be improved. :-) --Kim Bruning 00:18, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Templates

I've recently noticed that a lot of your templates end with "For the mediation committee, (user delivering message)". Just a suggestion that you make it "On behalf of the mediation committee," - this way it is more straightforward. -- Lima Golf Talk | Contributions 11:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Community enforced mediation

Hi, I've written a proposal that's gaining support and I'd like to make sure I don't step on anybody's toes or cause inadvertent confusion. The draft version is here. It would be a new type of mediation that would allow participants to impose arbitration-like remedies on themselves.

The aim is to complement the good work you already do, not to compete with it. I'm particularly concerned to make sure participants don't confuse a new experimental format with what you do. Comments and suggestions are welcome. Regards, DurovaCharge! 22:45, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Ping!

Hello! I'm seeing very little activitiy on this page. Is there a more active location to request mediation committee feedback, or has the mediation committee gone inactive again? --Kim Bruning 12:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

This is a automated to all bot operators

Please take a few moments and fill in the data for your bot on Wikipedia:Bots/Status Thank you Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 19:41, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank You!

I just wanted to say thank you for helping out Wikipedia so much by volunteering your time. 128.172.143.112 04:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Jews for Jesus 2

Good afternoon (GMT time); I am posting - for the record - a notice to all Mediation Committee members that I have closed the above Mediation Case as successful.

As a non-Committee member, I thought I ought to inform the committee that I have closed the case after mediating it. All parties are agreeable and are of the opinion that the Mediation has been successful.

I hope my mediation has been of a satisfactory standard to the Committee, and it has been a pleasure assisting the committee in this matter. Please do not hesitate to call upon me again if need be - I have enjoyed and relished the opportunity for more advanced mediation, and would jump at the chance to serve once again.

Please do not hesitate to contact me - via email or my talk page - if there are any further questions or comments.

Kind regards,
Anthonycfc [T • C] 17:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Bermuda Triangle

Respectfully, I have to ask for a resolution of something which I am calling minor. I had uploaded and used two images for the Bermuda Triangle article [1] some months ago. An editor removed these images, citing a policy concerning what he claimed was not fair use IAW WPFU Counterexamples. However, I countered that use of these images was authorized IAW line 7 of the Counterexamples policy in that I could use magazine illustrations for the topic at hand. The first image, that of the February 1964 issue of Argosy Magazine, was used to illustrate exactly where the popular stories of the Bermuda Triangle originated, and the second image, that of the front page to an April, 1925 issue of the New York Times, was there as an example of refuting what was written in the popular books on the subject. The New York Times page was also included on the article Raifuku Maru.

I know this is extremely minor and petty, but it underscores several larger issues about Wikipedia content, which was laid down in the February 18, 2007 front page of the Nashville Tennessean newspaper. Wikipedia is under fire from academia, from professional historians, from scientists, from educators over content, specifically that content which is included by just about anyone who simply has no business what they're talking about. Professors at the university where I am a student (MTSU) have warned us all never to use content from Wikipedia for that reason; it is unreliable as a serious educational tool. But myself, as well as many others, are trying to work hard to overturn that discrepancy. Even as something as minor as the Bermuda Triangle deserves attention, which is why I have left this here because I simply don't like it when an article that I have worked on to try to make it as factual as possible has to be altered because someone else didn't like the pictures. So, if you please, tell if the two images involved are legal or not. Carajou 21:22, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Chances

I would like to know what chance i would have of being selected if i nominate myself. Currently i am mediating a dispute on LaRoucheGeo. Talk to me 02:39, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

There is no definitive guide as to whether or not someone will be selected to join the Committee. Personally, as the Committee chair, I have taken a policy to not comment on specific nominations. The best advice I can give (if you truly wish to join) would be to nominate yourself for a second time and see how the Committee reacts.
For the mediation Committee, ^demon[omg plz] 15:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

MedBot

I found User talk:===Articles involved===, which was quite funny. If any of the bot operators wish to look at this before I delete it tomorrow, be my guest.

Cheers, Daniel Bryant 21:32, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Urgghh - that looks very strange. Tangotango has told me that Essjay made some modifications to the code, which may have caused (and fixed) that particular bug. So, for now, I'm using the original code which may cause more problems - we'll see when some cases run through it. Martinp23 21:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Jumping in on rejected cases

I may jump in on cases you all reject. I wanted to offer a courtesy discussion before I started doing this. jbolden1517Talk 22:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

In most cases, it isn't any of the MedCom who reject Mediation - it's just the fact that one or more of the parties has refused to agree to mediation. Generally, mediation won't work in cases where we don't have the acceptance of all the parties, and in most cases will never work. That said, feel free to trawl through our rejected case archives and offer to mediate informally on the article talk page or a sub-page of the article talk page. (This is only my opinon - I'd wait for those of the other committee members if I were you!). Martinp23 22:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Of course the MedCom always encourages informal mediation. Martinp23 is right though, you probably won't find willing participants, if they disagreed previously to mediation. ^demon[omg plz] 23:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Mediation_Committee/Archive/5&oldid=1144733385"