Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal: Difference between revisions

Archives

Archive 1

Just wanted to make a note that he's been chosen as a coordinator, via a method we shall pretend is not totally arbitrary between me and Phil. We'll say we thought long and hard on this, but we really didn't. We could say that it took 20 back-and-forth emails, but it really only took 3. So, congratulations! ;-) Xavexgoem (talk) 07:20, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Xavexgoem and Phil, I'm glad to have the opportunity to help keep an organization with as stellar a reputation as ours running (Okay, that last sentence was too much even for me). Anyway, Episkopos Wordsmith, Reinforcer of Discord and Cabalist-in-Chief is at your service *dusts off Wgfinley's old Grand Poobah chair*.

One of the first things i'd like to do is have some input on the draft I made of Wikipedia: What Mediation Cabal is not. I'm envisioning a MedCab that is less bogged down with process wonkery and more freespirited (and, dare I say it, fun). If a case isn't right for us, rather than letting it rot on the new cases template, we're free to tall them "sorry, we really can't help with this, X might be more suitable." Mediation should be casual, and free of the dramastorms that other forms of DR produce en masse.

As Wgfinley once said, "The way to the heart of any Grand Poobah [or Episkopos, for that matter] is to embrace the trifecta of which BE BOLD is one. We need some boldness here. That's what I hope to interject. Why do we even have a page as silly as "Mediation Cabal" with WP:TINMC as the shortcut? Why? I'll tell you, let me think of the reason first though...."

So, keep an eye on this space for more stuff you won't want to miss (or maybe just some drunken ramblings, who can tell?) The Wordsmith^Communicate 08:19, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Drunken ramblings, rational arguments. Who cares? Xavexgoem (talk) 08:30, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More importantly, will anyone be able to tell the difference? The Wordsmith^Communicate 08:36, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, and I like the MEDCABNOT document. One thing that might be added, perhaps, would be to point out that mediation results in a voluntary agreement between participants, and that the results aren't enforceable. If Joe and Fred decide to allow Sam's paragraph into an article as long as he keeps it under 100 words, and then they change their mind later, Sam can't appeal and get someone to "force" Joe and Fred to allow the paragraph into the article. The "MedCab is not Arbitration" section implies this when it says that the parties must "form their own consensus" but it isn't explicit. Anyway, good job with the essay so far! -- Atama頭 18:33, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to change it. You can edit almost any article on Wikipedia by just following the Edit link at the top of the page. We encourage you to be bold in updating pages, because wikis like ours develop faster when everybody edits. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. You can always preview your edits before you publish them or test them out in the sandbox. If you need additional help, check out our getting started page or ask the friendly folks at the Teahouse. The Wordsmith^Communicate 19:02, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So that's how the site works? Thanks!

You wanted input, I gave some. I was making a suggestion that I wasn't sure was necessary, which is why I wasn't being bold. But whatever. -- Atama頭 22:08, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{{sofixit}} might have been better (w/ tlx)... with a smiley at the end, or sumthin'. Atama, the standard reply to templeting of the regulars is {{Don't template the regulars}} :-) Xavexgoem (talk) 01:01, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, it was intended to be a tongue in cheek way of saying that you don't need my permission to edit the article, and anybody should feel free to be BOLD and make changes if they wish. The worst that happens is it gets reverted and then discussed. Who knows, maybe we'll even have a MedCab case for a content dispute regarding what a Medcab page should say. Also, I promise to always use a smiley face to denote humour. The Wordsmith^Communicate 03:11, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, it was input as asked. I probably should have put it at the talk page of the essay. I do agree that Wikipedia needs more cartoon smiley faces. -- Atama頭 04:49, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent! Here's to a new year of effective (informal) mediation. —James Kalmar 18:57, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey guys, just letting you know that MedCab is severely backlogged. If anybody could accept an extra case, or anyone who doesn't have one but is interested would take one on, please do so - we need to get these off the template. Here's a list of the cases we have and what will be easy/difficult:

• Bioidentical hormone replacement therapy: Shouldn't be too difficult, based mainly on a content dispute over how a phrase is used in the article. Good starter case.
• Global Warming: I'm going to take this one once parties have agreed to mediation.
• WP:OUTCOMES: Meta-disputes should probably be taken by people who have handled cases before, not recommended for new mediators.
• Manual of Style: Same as above.
• Longevity myths: You'll deal with religion, how the term "myth" is used, and probably some POV pushing and WP:FRINGE. If you've handled one or two cases before, you should be ready, though the case will probably last for a while in order to resolve the complex nature of the article.
• Republican presidential candidates: Good starter case, parties have a content dispute while trying to form some sort of inclusion criteria.
• Massachusetts election: Same as above.
• Country templates: This one is a decent starter case as well. Parties have a disagreement about how to include unrecognised states on a template. The calm voice of a mediator will help them achieve consensus.
• Goatse.cx: I'm preparing to take this one.

Any help would be appreciated; i'm also posting to relevant other areas in order to attract some new mediators. The Wordsmith^Communicate 17:49, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whew... good luck with Goatse... it's gonna be a major pain in the ass. Xavexgoem (talk) 19:58, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Haha! I think I'll take Longevity myths, I don't have any cases at the moment. I do find it ironic that The Wordsmith predicts that the case will last for a long time (perhaps that itself is a myth). -- Atama頭 20:28, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, i'm taking my time making the necessary preparations. Don't want to rush things and hurt myself. The Wordsmith^Communicate 20:50, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/suggestions

Got any crazy ideas about how this mediation thing works? Put them there! Your overlord, Xavexgoem (talk) 08:17, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is a discussion and RfC in progress on the WP:V (Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#RfC status) talk page about this shortcut. I am not out to use MedCab as a stepping stone to the next formal step in dispute rez, however I would like to keep things informal as long as possible. The dispute is about keeping or canning a longstanding shortcut, WP:PROVEIT, which has been causing problems for a long, long time. It is invoked by most editors correctly, i.e., to get an editor to PROVE that a claim is verifiable by reliable sources. Some editors, however, invoke the shortcut in an effort to get an editor to PROVE that a claim itself is TRUE, which, of course, is not what WP:V is all about. I am still a novice in the arbitration process, so any help you can give me would be appreciated.
 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  13:40, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Paine Elsworth is developing a case of WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT when it comes to this shortcut... so I agree that he could use some help. Blueboar (talk) 21:25, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And from my perspective, the same can be said of this editor, who refuses to acknowledge hard evidence, nor produce any in favor of the shortcut. I tell you guys, I am sincerely trying to stick to this issue on that WP:V Talk page, however since the beginning, involved editors have not only refused to listen, there has been a good deal of innuendo for me to give up and leave. Sorry, that's not an option for me.

 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  21:43, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What are you asking for, support, or for someone to close the RfC? The RfC seems to have a pretty strong consensus, and I don't think dragging it out for the full 30 days is going to change anything. -- Atama頭 22:01, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not ask for "support", editor Atama. All I ask is for your counsel regarding unofficial, informal mediation for a dispute on Wikipedia. I do not ask for you to impose sanctions or make judgments. There are 6 opposes, yes, however there are also three editors who agree that some improvement to the policy/shortcut is necessary. If I'm not mistaken, that doesn't even come close to a "consensus".

 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  22:07, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think mediation is a good idea, mediation is one step in the dispute resolution process, while the RfC is another, and the RfC is still in progress. As to the RfC, not a single person has supported the removal of PROVEIT as a link to that particular portion of WP:V. I'm also having concerns with your conduct in the RfC, especially statements like, "At present, there are no valid reasons to keep this shortcut, and I have proved beyond any shadow of doubt that improvement is necessary." I'm not offering any threats, but for your own sake I very strongly suggest withdrawing from the dispute at the RfC. You're a good editor with a history of positive contributions but that discussion is heading downhill fast, and in the interest of avoiding drama it might be best for you to move on. This is just friendly advice from someone who hates seeing good people get into bad situations with good intentions. -- Atama頭 22:27, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for your good advice, Atama, and I really do wish I could take your advice, but you seem to be missing that I'm not the one who continues to show incivility in that RfC. But besides that (what's a little incivility among good editors!) what you really seem to be missing is that there are two other editors who agree that an improvement is called for. Both editors have supported the removal of the link from the shortcut box, while keeping the WP:PROVEIT Redirect intact. This would hopefully discourage its misuse. It's a compromise that I would be willing to accept. And I have noted this on the WP:V Talk page.

 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  22:50, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• PS. Also, I am just curious, Atama, why you would think that my statement you quoted would constitute bad conduct? The only actual reason given for keeping the shortcut had to do with its longevity, its longstanding status as a shortcut. And if I'm not mistaken, longevity is no reason to hold back improvements to Wikipedia, are they? In this particular case of the WP:PROVEIT shortcut, the only thing "longstanding" meant to me was that the shortcut had been causing edit wars, incivility on Talk pages and confusion for a long, long time. And yes, I thought at the time that I had proved my case, that improvement is necessary. There were two other editors who agreed with my assessment. So how does my statement constitute bad conduct on my part?

It seems like "declaring a win" in a quixotic manner, and more than a bit of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Even those two people who give you a little bit of support by saying that perhaps something can be improved, you've latched onto like a man grasping at straws, despite the fact that even those people ultimately disagree with you. You've also declared that you've made your case that improvements are necessary, ignoring the overwhelming consensus against you. This strikes me as rather tendentious, and is disruptive. However, you've also seemed to come around at the end of the discussion (one might say, come to your senses), so it's not really something I'm that worried about. But the discussion was troubling before that point. As a rather glaring example of such disruption, when Jclemens asked you to drop the stick, your response was a thanks for the support. I'm not sure if that was just an attempt to moderate your response in polite terms, but it really just looks like you're pretending that he said the opposite of what he actually said. That kind of behavior makes it almost impossible to have any kind of a productive discussion. If I tell you that I disagree with you, and you thank me for agreeing with you, how can we even communicate? It's much worse than ignoring someone. That is why I had concerns, and I'll be very happy when that RfC concludes. -- Atama頭 21:13, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My limited understanding is that formal mediation handles only content disputes. Does Med Cabal have any such limitations?

Is the main difference between formal mediation and Med Cabal just that formal mediation is formal?

I'm asking partly for general curiousity. But I'm also wondering whether there is a place for assistance when discussing policy matters and the like, and for handling things that aren't necessarily disputes but would be helped by an impartial third party facilitating the discussion(s). Mainly, I'm thinking of the major current and recent discussions about BLP issues. I had been away for a few years, so I don't know how often such discussion moderators might be useful otherwise. Maurreen (talk) 05:10, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We do mostly handle content disputed. Almost everything has a little bit of user conduct mixed in, but we generally try to cut through the crap as quickly as possible and deal with the content. That said, some active mediators may be willing to go assist a dispute taking place elsewhere; the best place to ask for assistance is on their user talkpage. The Wordsmith^Communicate 03:11, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Maurreen (talk) 03:25, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I took on the Race and Intelligence mediation (which isn't going badly - a few entrenched opinions still, but it's making progress). Unfortunately I've run into one editor who has taken to posting occasional long angry 'left-field' rants. I'm debating with myself on the correct approach. She tends to put her posts into separate sections, so they are not overly disruptive of the ongoing discussions, but the are a bit of a distraction, and it's becoming increasingly clear that there's very little chance she will work towards a compromise position (she has a strong preference for a position that is relatively minor in the scholarly debate and I can't seem to wean her away from some pronounced wp:synthesis she uses to support it).

I guess this is a "what would you do in my place?" kind of thing. --Ludwigs2 17:55, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Best thing to do would be to politely ask her to keep her replies short, and to not put them in a different section. On some mediations where parties post tl;dr rants, I often ask that they voluntarily accept a word limit. The Wordsmith^Communicate 03:12, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hunh. that second thing is not something that would have occurred to me. I'll start with the first, which seems sensible, and try the second if it fails. thanks. --Ludwigs2 03:37, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you do go with the second choice, the best thing to do is to ask that all parties agree to the same limit. That way, nobody feels singled out. The Wordsmith^Communicate 03:47, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Darlings; well, I just stopped by to take a look at how everything is going. I'm heartened the Cabal is in good hands. (Xavagoem, I read your haiku in the Dec archives, and you're quite right; let's please not resurrect the stupidly Uriah Heap obsequiousness I inadvertently introduced before.) I just want to say I appreciate, very much, how the torch has been kept ablaze by you fine people; and if anything, the torch burns brighter. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 15:11, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Nicholas, nice to see a vote of confidence from one of the first coordinators. As a matter of fact, I'm one of them now, and I started out taking my first cases under your leadership. I'm sure we would all welcome you back if you wanted to take a case or two (hint hint). The Wordsmith^Communicate 15:17, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dude! Come back! You're before my time, but Kim would go on and on and on about you. You're still preserved at WP:ZEN with one of the best koans. Xavexgoem (talk) 08:59, 20 March 2010 (UTC) Also, that obsequiousness probably solves more than a few cases...[reply]

Xavexgoem (talk · contribs) decided to unilaterally close the Race and Intelligence mediation ([1] diff), despite having vocally abandoned the mediation several months ago. I reopened it, and we are continuing until there is discussion and consensus about closure on the mediation page itself. I realize that there is a bit of a stink over ANI (which has more to do with me than the mediation - I am not a popular person in some circles), but can we try to avoid extending that wiki-politics over here?

Now, if you all would like to open a discussion here about the state of the mediation, I'm good with that. but please, no more surreptitious efforts at closure. --Ludwigs2 11:16, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was really hoping that would stick. Oh well.

If you're low on mediatorial capital, just message me. I'll try and help, to make up for it. Xavexgoem (talk) 15:05, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The only place I'm low on 'mediatorial capital' (if I understand what you mean) is with Mathsci, and I don't quite know what Mathsci's thing is. He could have said he didn't want me as a mediator when I initially made the offer, he could have participated in the mediation at any point in the intervening time. Best as I understand what happened here, TechnoFaye (talk · contribs) had a moment where she went a bit off the deep end (something I knew she was prone to, and which she admits she's prone to), Wapondaponda (talk · contribs) took it to ANI rather than bringing it up with me, and then Mathsci (talk · contribs) decided to use it as an excuse to air out a whole bunch of grievances he has with me (reaching back three years, no less). Bit unfortunate, all of it, but since we were close to a mainspace draft before all this started I think we should get that draft in place.

I've had a talk with Faye, and she's agreed to present her views in a less inflammatory way; I'm putting my foot down in the mediation, so we shouldn't have any more problems with incivility. Once we get the mainspace draft up, I will encourage people to read it and review it, and after that we can start proper discussions on the mediation page about what needs to be changed in the draft, whether we want to keep it, and whether or not the mediation should continue. I'm sorry it's not more dramatic than that.

This kind of thing never happens to me in real life. very strange... --Ludwigs2 15:49, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• And I closed it again, and Ludwigs reverted again. I don't think Ludwigs stands any realistic chance of delivering a result here. The mediation has been going on for far too long, there is significant good faith objection to its continuing, including from parties, and after months of mediation the article is an embarrassment. Something needs to change, urgently, and continuing with the process that has failed thus far does not look to me to be very liekly to deliver any improvement. Guy (Help!) 17:11, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just left what I think was a reasonable offer on Guy's talk. If guy and Mathsci will (pardon the colloquialism) get off my back for 2 weeks, and if in those 2 weeks there is no significant improvement in the article, I will open a thread on the mediation page myself and suggest closure. There's no harm in giving it that much time, and it puts a nice, clear dealine on how much longer this goes on. will that work for everyone involved? --Ludwigs2 17:49, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]