Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/2007 Archive 2

How to help medcab coordinators help the mediators

(Headline inserted to help us get back on track. — Sebastian 00:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC))

I've now done some reading. My preliminary impression is that the medcab coordinators don't get informed/don't learn of problems on time often enough when things go wrong. How can we encourage this? --Kim Bruning 23:08, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Good question! I think people just don't trust that they get good advice. A case in point is when someone asked about the Muhammad mediation above, and all they received as an answer was "try harder". I had looked at that mediation myself before and did not tackle it because I did not know how even to to begin. I did not reply to the question because I did not want to discourage the mediator. But now that I'm reading Gandhi's autobiograpy, I realize that this was weak. In the long run this only leads to people losing their trust in the advice they get here. I think it would help us if we admitted that mediation here is hard, and we often fail. — Sebastian 00:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Could we get mediators to team up? Say 2 or 3 per mediation? This reduces the workload for all, mediators can keep an eye on each other in case one of them is having a bad day, and less experienced mediators can learn by osmosis from the more experienced mediators. There's no rule that says you can't already do that right now. — Kim Bruning — continues after insertion below

I tried that several times, and it isn't as simple as it sounds. Actually, it rather increases the workload because you have to deal with one more party. It requires that both mediators communicate well with each other. I would recommend making sure that both mediators have each other's e-mail (and maybe phone number) and agree on a way to coordinate their work, e.g. by checking their mailbox before making a public statement. — Sebastian 05:19, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

That's starting to sound like a plan. To build that out further, did you know that "Mediation cabal" was originally a play on "IRC cabal"? While decisions shouldn't really be made on IRC (else you really are being a cabal ;-) ), it is often a great tool to work together and hash out a plan as to what to do on-wiki. People who haven't been on irc much often find it unnerving how quickly and smoothly IRC-based editors appear to converge on and co-operate on a problem. :-) --Kim Bruning 05:30, 22 February 2007 (UTC) There is a channel reserved for the medcab on freenode. irc.freenode.net, #wikipedia-medcab

Good point - that's even better! (If it works  ;-) And thanks for the little history lesson, I didn't know that. — Sebastian 05:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Medcab people should hang out there more often! We also have a member of the arbitration committee and a member of the mediation committee present there rather often. Most people are on in the evening (EST) or late evening (UTC). It would be nice to have more coverage for other time zones. --Kim Bruning 12:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Other ideas? --Kim Bruning 01:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

If we had enough manpower, I would strongly advocate teaming every novice mediator with an experienced mediator, but experienced mediators tend to leave and we always have more cases than we can handle. --Ideogram 22:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

How about a buddy system, where new mediators are assigned a experienced mediator, who quickly looks in from time to time. this wouldn't require much manpower. Geo. Talk to me 18:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Nice idea! Instead of assigning, I think people should just be free to pick. I'm creating a section, where people can add themselves if they're willing to help: Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Suggestions for mediators#Buddy system; please feel free to expand that. — Sebastian 21:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Status Fields

I've updated the MedCab case status template, so that "open" is rendered in green, etc.. (similar to the AMA status indicator at the bottom of case pages. Hopefully this will provide a bit more readability.

Kind regards,
anthonycfc ^[talk] 06:34, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Connecting with dispute resolution folks

Hi I've been lurking around reading (and adoring) Wikipedia's approach to dispute resolution. As an attorney focused in ADR now working for a statewide non-profit in NY, I'm not only interested in helping out the Wikicommunity but also taking your experience out of cyberspace to students and professional mediators. I'm probably not the first person to have approached you about this, but hey--your doing great work and building a really powerful model. --I now have a username iceweaselqueen but little experience in the ettiquete or best way to approach others sharing my interest in conflict resolution. Suggestions? Iceweaselqueen 19:55, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

You're not the first (see the section #Harvard law class will be mediating as an assignment above), but you're very welcome. I'm not sure if we have many good success stories here - see #visiting after absence (and Wikipedia talk:Mediation Committee/Archive 4#Success stories for the Mediation Committee, which is a different entity from the Mediation Cabal). — Sebastian 20:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Success conditions and mediation strategies

(spun out from #Connecting with dispute resolution folks)

Maybe we need to spin out some discussions on success conditions and mediation strategies. IMHO, the "typical case" of one side losing interest is often a mild success -- a lot of Wikipedia concensus forms around one side deciding that an issue is a close one and that they don't care enough to keep fighting, and that's fine. If all we do in the normal case is serve as a mechanism to keep people talking civilly until passiions die down, rather than escalating their disputes into personal attacks and arbcomm, we're doing ok. A major success is when the parties actually reach a true consensus -- this is somewhat difficult because (1) parties rarely have anything to lose by contininuing to argue, and (2) even when some parties agree, consensus can change, so it only takes one more dissenting editor to upset the apple cart. TheronJ 21:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Mild success: This is only a success if your top priority is peace and calm. Wikipedia's priorities are WP:NPOV and WP:EQ. These two pillars often lose out when one party gives up, as it is often the thoughtful, nice editor who gives in, while the bullying POV pusher has their way.

It is true that mediation can encourage people to talk civilly, but that may be a Pyrrhic victory. When, as is often the case, the typical impatient POV pusher just stops talking and puts all energy in revert warring, and our hands as mediators are tied, then we teach the wrong lesson that civilty doesn't pay off. I'm not saying it always ends like this, but not seeing this outcome would be wishful thinking. Only when we face reality can we change it. — Sebastian 17:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

That's a fair qualifier - I agree that where the outcome of the mediation is affirmatively bad, soothing the waters until the correct editor gives up is not even a mild success. I haven't seen that in any of my mediations, though -- even in cases where no one reached consensus, I would say that either the "right side" ended up on the higher ground or that there was no clear right side. TheronJ 18:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Well then, maybe you're doing something right that I don't. As a mediator for the Sri Lanka conflict, I'm experiencing that situation in an edit war (meaning: a series of battles in different theatres - it's silly when people call one battle a "war"!) regarding tagging several articles, most recently Captain Miller (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Thenmuli Rajaratnam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). The more reasonable party pledged to stop reverting, and I joined the pledge, so the articles are now in the state that the other party reverted to. Maybe I'm just overlooking something and you can help me see what it is? — Sebastian 21:15, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• I'm no mediation genius, so take my advice for whatever you think it's worth, but I generally wouldn't propose a unilateral disarmament. (I'm not particularly opposed to it either, but if you don't have buy-in from all of the parties, you probably don't have anything to mediate.) If one side wants to stop edit warring, that's fine, and if they do it right, they may end up in better position if the case ever goes to arbitration, but they will have to accept a risk that the article will end up on The Wrong Version for a while. In the very worst case, once the mediation ends or its clear the other party won't join, the editors can always start reverting again.
• It looks like you're one of the editors involved in the WT:SLR battle, so let me add a little more advice. In general, I think the solution to an edit war is to ask for more participation, through an RFC or something, and to try to suggest new compromises rather than just reverting. In the worst case, you may have to revert, but look carefully at WP:EDITWAR and WP:DR and try to come up with other ways to respond.
• Lastly, one of the reasons I like Mediation Cabal is that the mediation methods are fairly fluid. None of them are a guaranteed recipe to resolve a conflict, but the Cabal gives editors a chance to experiment with different ones. TheronJ 22:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

My original criterion was if I could roll a conflict back by 1 step. Want another step? Apply for medcab assistance some more.

Here's my personal list of steps. There's actually literature that covers conflict resolution much better than I can, and I might go looking for it later. :-)

1. peace
2. tense relations (not being able to work together)
3. arguing (actual back and forth outside the original area of cooperation)
4. not talking
5. actively fighting (Starting RFCs, or opposing RFAs etc...)

--Kim Bruning 00:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for both your replies! I haven't been aware of "The Wrong Version"; I love it, although I'm afraid that this explosive information could get in "The Wrong Hands".

Luckily, my problems seem significantly smaller now with some distance. I realized that the POV edits were only a fraction of the warring side's edits; the bulk were real vandalism fight and legitimate improvements. Since the unilateral disarmament was a unilateral idea of one party to begin with, it seems that party isn't too bitter about it remaining unilateral, either.

RfC: I had shied away from that because my impression was that it is perceived as a very heavyhanded step. I have no experience with it yet and I wouldn't know how to conduct it without the "defendant" party questioning my neutrality. But now that you mention it, I realize there may actually be ways to do that.

fluid: Yes, I love that, too! That's why I put a word in against imposing more rules, as above.

I also find Kim's idea of steps really helpful. It helps set the expectations straight. I just had a talk with my mother about this, and her reaction was something like "That's terrible! How can you ever hope to achieve peace in such a hateful ethnic conflict?" and I replied that I'm happy when I get people to stop insulting each other. Interesting, though that you rank "not being able to work together" second. Off the top of my head, I would have ranked #2 after #3; but it makes sense: In #2, they can at least talk through a mediator while in #3 they're so engaged that they don't listen to anyone else. If you ever think of creating an official list like this, let me know and we can work on it together. — Sebastian 00:38, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I just noticed that my last paragraph may clash with what I had said above: We don't need more rules here. Since every case and every mediator is different it wouldn't make much sense, anyway. It goes to show how we (or I, at least) always have to resist the temptation to introduce more rules. — Sebastian 00:44, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Closed Case Headers/Footers

Good evening all; I'm currently using these templates at the top and bottom of all my successful MedCabal cases (I've not developed unsuccessful ones yet - I've not needed them :) I was wondering if the wider community would like to trial them?

I'd prefer for them to stay in my userspace, but edits and improvements are welcome!

Kind regards,
anthonycfc ^[talk] 22:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of these; they are huge and people rarely look at closed cases anyway. That said, it would be useful for mediators to be able to leave some kind of comment as to how the case ended; whether it died from lack of interest, was referred to another form of dispute resolution, etc. --Ideogram 22:59, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm just taking it from my mediation at MedCom, and it seems to work there. Mind you, MedCom is formal; well, anyway, watch this space. anthonycfc ^[talk] 00:26, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

You could accomplish the same thing and address my concerns by (1) not putting a huge image in it and (2) not duplicating the same message at the top and bottom. I don't see any reason to place this information so prominently and yell "look at me"; whatever you want to say can be put in the "Mediator response" section. --Ideogram 16:36, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Should there be an option for "discreet" handling?

Should we really ask this question? Isn't the idea of an open process central to Wikipedia? Just a thought. Vassyana 14:11, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we should mention discreet handling in the actual form. The case page generated is public for all to see, so simply by creating it we are already being indiscreet. We should fix the instructions to say that if you want discreet handling, use email or IRC. (This does raise the question of who to send email to. Maybe one of the coordinators, or a mediator listed as currently handling a case.)

It is very rare that someone requests discreet handling. Often people put their email addresses here even though they don't need discreet handling, and open themselves up to spam. --Ideogram 16:40, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

People can ask for help publicly, and we can then contact those people per wikipedia email to fill in the details (the public questions are optional). Like all forms of diplomacy, the initial steps in a case might best be discrete, even if the final outcome might be quite public.

Sometimes I think that mediation is just a way to give people a chance to vent their anger and frustrations at each other in a safe and controlled way. With a skilled mediator, this might even be constructive. E-mail gives people a chance to do these things without embarrassing themselves in public.

Especially in situations where people are shouting at each other and have trouble at assuming good faith, talking with everyone individually per e-mail or irc is much preferred, if only because the participants won't be able to see each others (perceived) insults. ;-)

While I don't agree with all mediation committee methodology, I do think that taking things off-wiki and keeping things discrete are very important and powerful tools for mediating disputes. (In fact, some medcom mediators require participants to promise to keep everything said during mediation secret.)

Of course, the best way to resolve a dispute is to take both participants to the pub, and talk things over over a nice cool glass of beer. (Sannse's first law, unpublished) :-)

--Kim Bruning 00:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your responses. They are appreciated. Vassyana 16:37, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Proposed template changes

I have some proposed some changes to Template:ActiveDiscussMC on its talk page. Any input is welcomed. Vassyana 14:45, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

This template is not often used, anyway. --Ideogram 16:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that has a bit to do with it not being on the main page or suggestions for mediators page. I think if its use was encouraged, it was see more action. Just my opinion though, you're welcome to take it with some salt. ;o) Vassyana 17:05, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

We haven't really decided if it's a useful template or not. You are welcome to improve it and try to convince others that it is useful. --Ideogram 17:32, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I shall make the attempt then. ;o) Thank you for all your feedback. It is appreciated. Vassyana 03:39, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Advice?

Mediators should be impartial. That being so, how is the best way to approach a situation where one party is obviously off-base by WP standards? I mean, sure when appropriate we can say let the rules venture forth and pleasure themselves, but what if it is not an appropriate case? How do other members of the cabal handle this? Vassyana 16:44, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

There is a balancing act between maintaining neutrality and enforcing Wikipedia policy. But if a party is obviously violating policy you should go ahead and explain it and refer to the appropriate page. If the case is less clear or a judgement call it is usually better to get more community input by one of the methods I listed earlier and let other parties make the decision and do the explaining. --Ideogram 19:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Something in me revolts against the distinction between neutrality and WP policy. That's just not right. NPOV, after all, is one of our pillars.

I think I know what you meant, though: Neutrality between two editors; as opposed to neutrality as stipulated by WP:NPOV. There's unfortunately sometimes a huge gap between the two. That's at least what I'm experiencing in ethnic conflicts in which one side is just outnumbered by the other. —This is part of a comment by SebastianHelm (of 19:12, 12 March 2007). [moved remainder of post in new section, because it's not directly advice for the original question. — Sebastian 22:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)]

Majority sees no need for mediation

moved from above section

I'm experiencing a similar situation as the one described above in an ethnic conflict where one side is outnumbered by the other. (This is not a clear cut situation, so it doesn't have an easy policy solution). The majority side just sees no need for mediation at all, because they can just apply the tactics of concerted reversions. They just keep reverting. Since the opponent(s) will run out of allowed reversions before them, the article will always end up with their version. In some cases, then can even ban an overeager opponent per WP:3RR. We seem to have no way of preventing that tactics, and they know that. That seems to be one of the main reasons why mediations fail, at least for ethnic conflicts. — Sebastian 19:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC), modified 22:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

In such a situation I would recommend page protection, and if that fails, ArbCom. --Ideogram 19:18, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestions! I have not considered these two options before for various reasons, mostly because I felt it may not fit the role of a mediator. But maybe I gave up too soon:

• page protection: In our area there are many pages that are the object of such fights. But maybe it would work to pick one first, let's say Sri Lanka Army (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Now my main concern is, as TheronJ pointed out above, that The Wrong Version would be protected. Can I ask that it be protected in a certain version, or does that counter my role as a a mediator? Protection by itself doesn't mediate, but maybe that would bring the unwilling majority to the table.
• ArbCom: In the past, I initiated one ArbCom case, and even though the affected person pleaded guilty themself and agreed to be treated to the full extent of Wikipedia rules, I still felt pushed in the role of a investigator or prosecutor, which clashes with the role of a mediator. Does anyone have experience with or advice for starting an ArbCom out of a mediation? — Sebastian 22:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) There is nothing wrong with you as mediator asking for the page to be protected. There is, however, no real way of ensuring that the "Wrong Version" won't be protected, and if that happens the party in favor of that version may see no reason to negotiate. I personally feel that there are situations where you can tell that one of the sides will not talk if their version is protected, and that in those situations the other version should be protected. However there is no policy that supports this approach; the protecting admin is supposed to protect it in whatever form they find it and not make judgement calls of this sort. (There is a sneaky way of accomplishing this: if you can put it in the "right version" and get an admin to protect it before anyone notices. You didn't hear this from me.)

I strongly recommend that you do not file an RFAR yourself. You should present the option and let other parties decide whether to proceed, and help them with the procedure if necessary. You may need to comment on the RFAR; you should try to remain factual and avoid stating opinions that may lead one of the parties to believe you are siding against them. --Ideogram 22:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Boy, you're fast! Yes, what you say about RFAR makes perfect sense. Maybe I'll propose it in our project.

About being sneaky: I wouldn't want to do that. I worked hard to earn both sides' trust, and that would destroy it. Actually, even this discussing here is a border line for me. I just told one of the majority people that I'm not out to get them, and I'm wondering if I shouldn't tell him that I'm here talking about an RFAR that might hurt them. — Sebastian 23:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

What can I say, I have no life and hover over my watchlist jumping on anyone who will talk to me.

In future if you need some discretion you can go to #wikipedia-medcab, I try to monitor that channel, or send email to me or one of the coordinators. --Ideogram 23:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

PS remember that ArbCom rules on behavioral issues and not content disputes. --Ideogram 23:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, forgot about that. There's probably no strong case to call this sort of issues "behavioral" since it is allowed by WP:3RR, at least in practice. I'm not sure if the sentence "Editors may still be blocked even if they have not made more than three edits..." applies. — Sebastian 04:04, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

You can in fact get people blocked for repeatedly going up to the edge of 3RR and refusing to discuss. 3RR is a "line of death" not a quota. --Ideogram 04:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

On a majority tagteam like that, you could always invite outside editors into the dicussion to help bring in neutral parties. WP:3O, WP:PR and WP:RFC can be useful for that purpose. I would recommend that one of the "minority" participants do the WP:RFC however, due to its nature. By soliciting third opinions and peer reviews you can get more eyes on the article. Of course, it could complicate a mediation, but if its going nowhere fast, it is an option. Vassyana 23:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! I posted this on WT:SLR#Current edit war, let's see what people say. — Sebastian 04:04, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

New case request filing procedure

I got sick and tired of fixing misnamed case pages, so I came up with an idiot-proof case page creation procedure.

You can see how it works by following the instructions at User:Ideogram/medcab instructions.

Suggestions and comments welcome. If there are no objections in the next few days I will replace the current instructions and procedure. --Ideogram 13:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that's a good change. Vassyana 18:38, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I have made the change. Along the way I rewrote the rest of the page too. I have also edited the case request form and the form instructions. Comments and suggestions welcome. --Ideogram 10:22, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Change to DR page

I made a some changes to the WP:DR page. I was looking for a little feedback to see what people thought of the changes. Vassyana 18:38, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Self-identifying as mediator

MedCab mediators are supposed to consider themselves as ordinary editors with no status above any other user. There have been concerns expressed that going to a dispute and saying, "Hi, I'm a mediator from MedCab" is not consistent with this. The way it used to work is mediators would mysteriously show up at a dispute and not "blow their cover". Should we recommend going back to this approach? --Ideogram 00:16, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't there when that approach was used, so I can't compare the two. But it seems to me that the open approach is more likely to create trust, especially in tough conflicts where people are very suspicious of every editor that does't 100% agree with them. — Sebastian 06:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I prefer an open process for MedCab mediation. I think as long as the mediators are clear that they are an informal mediator and do not put on any pretense of being an official or similar authority, there shouldn't be a problem. I honestly wonder if secrecy or "stealth" mediation is appropriate for an informal process. I also wonder if it could be potentially harmful to mediation. After all, I can imagine quite a number of editors would get upset if someone was "sneaky" about mediation and strongly question their motives and POV. Like Sebastian mentioned, there are a lot of situations where people are already suspicious of recently arrived editors at the article. Just some thoughts. Vassyana 13:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

The Guerrilla Mediation Network has reopened

Hello, all you fine mediators: I just wanted to drop you a note to say that I have just resuscitated Wikipedia:Guerrilla Mediation Network in an effort to solve the problems regarding overwork and old cases not getting mediated encountered here at the MedCab, and to provide a secondary means for people to seek more rapid assistance should they be impatient to wait. It occurred to me that in the event of cases not receiving mediators within a reasonable timeframe, someone could simply whack a Guerrilla Mediation template on the talk page with a link to the MedCab case page, and we could then deal with it instead. We are promising, at present, a 24-48h response timeframe. In addition, if anyone would be interested in helping out as a mediator, or should anyone have any comments about the initiative, I would be thrilled to hear from you. Yours, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 04:40, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Discussion for new mediators

Addhoc (talk · contribs) has mediated many cases for MedCab. I have asked him to conduct a discussion giving new mediators the benefit of his experience. Please feel free to comment or ask questions at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Suggestions for mediators/Addhoc. --Ideogram 22:04, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

How to

How does one become a volunteer here? I would like to help. IvoShandor 17:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Just pick a case from the new cases list, add yourself as a mediator, and go! You will need to add your username on the line that says "|mediators = " and change the line that says "|status = new" to "|status = open". --Ideogram 20:29, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Excellente. Thought so, just wanted to make sure. Thanks. IvoShandor 20:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

A little help

I think I may be losing my neutrality on Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-03-06 Looking for Alaska. I feel LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk · contribs) is claiming censorship, blaming all of the conflict on one editor (other editors opposed his position) and pureposefully playing ignorant of policy. The issue comes down to LEAC desiring to use a blog and blog comments as a source, while cherrypicking it for a quote. I've tried pushing on the policy and guidelines. I think I may have already pushed harder than I should have. Could other mediators look over the case and give me some feedback and advice? Vassyana 21:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Vassyana, had a look, my (very limited) understanding of policy is that WP:SOURCE indicates "material from self-published or questionable sources may be used in articles about those sources, so long as: it is relevant to their notability; it is not contentious; it is not unduly self-serving; it does not involve claims about third parties, or about events not directly related to the subject; there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it; [and] the article is not based primarily on such sources". In this context, I would say the quote passes WP:SOURCE and by implication WP:NOR. However, WP:UNDUE advises "an article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject". Quoting several paragraphs by the author (regardless of source) and not referring to any other sources, is possibly giving undue weight. Accordingly, I would suggest trimming the quote and giving specific mentions of media coverage about the controversy. Addhoc 19:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I've lost my neutrality on Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-03-06 Looking for Alaska and was wondering if another MedCab volunteer would pick up the case. I think I crossed the line and demonstrated a clear POV and even some contentiousness. It would be best if I bow out of the case honestly citing my lost NPOV, but I was hoping someone else would pick it up. Any takers? ;o) Vassyana 19:51, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

One side of the dispute has refused another mediator and left mediation. I closed the case accordingly and contacted the two other editors. Vassyana 17:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Looking for input

I proposed a change to WP:3O both on the talk page and on the village pump. I would appreciate feedback from the MedCab folks on this. Vassyana 17:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Makes perfectly good sense, really. --Kim Bruning 17:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Close a case?

I believe [[1]] should be closed as a bad faith submission. Specifically, the requestor's to "What would you like to change about that?" is bad news.

For him to A) Stop being a dickweed, B) acknowledge that his edit is in the wrong, and C) stop reverting my edit to a page that's already rather piss-poor. A) might be genetic, so I'll be happy with B) and C), and will settle for C) alone.

In closing it I would specifically refer to that comment. I would also suggest the user solicit a WP:3O since it is a conflict between him and one other editor. Thoughts? Vassyana 17:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

You could ask the person personally, maybe they need a mediator to act as a filter eh? :-) --Kim Bruning 23:13, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Template for Articles

I think there should be some templates for articles which has nominated for Mediation cabal like what we have in the case of FA articles or AfD.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 17:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Community enforceable mediation experimental rollout

Community enforceable mediation has entered a 90 day experimental phase. Other mediation venues often get backlogged so mediators may wish to refer some cases to this new program. Suitable cases would have:

• Two disputants.
• No allegations of sockpuppetry.
• Aspects of user conduct/policy violations overlapping the content dispute.
• Basically mature and reasonable participants.

Regards, Durova^Charge! 04:30, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

It's a great idea. Good luck! Vassyana 10:12, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Feedback requested

I am working on a WikiProject proposal for "reviewers". That is people who actively contribute to editor reviews, requests for feedback and the like. Any feedback on the idea would be welcomed. Vassyana 10:14, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-03-13 Electronic Voice Phenomenon

What's going on with this one? Eagle 101 hasn't been responding to any questions about it. Is it dead or waiting on something? --Minderbinder 15:22, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

No I have been distracted. In addition I was waiting on one participant to join. I'm sorry. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 15:52, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

No problem, we were just wondering where things were at. Who are you waiting on? --Minderbinder 21:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-03-25 Global warming

Big case, and I'm already overextended as is. Heeeeelp! :-) --Kim Bruning 02:16, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I could really use some help here. --Kim Bruning 21:59, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I've added the pages to my watchlist. Addhoc 22:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

*phew* Thank you very much. ^^;; --Kim Bruning 22:34, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-03-25 Global warming. Dropping this. Need help now. Last Call.

Sorry, really. I don't have the time to do this case properly. Can we organise a small team to take this over? I'm willing to help some people get up to speed, but I really really don't have the time. I mean it. Dropping the case would suck. I haven't heard back from Addhoc. Any volunteers? --Kim Bruning 13:13, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi, sorry I put the page on my watchlist and started to read through all of the discussion, by which time the article was protected. Obviously, would be willing to be part of a small team mediating this case. Addhoc 13:26, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

That would rock. :-) Any help appreciated. Could you take a look at the case talk page? This is a big case. Even just going to each person separately on their talk pages, and just taking separate statements, and getting clear what everyone would like done with global warming... that would be a big help. :-)

Let's say that again: This is a big case. Would anyone else be able to help too? I think we can make do with 2-3 more people. And I'll still try to be focal point for this case until I can foist that responsibility on someone else ;-) --Kim Bruning 15:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

As an editor involved in this, I would like to second Kim Bruning, and thank her for her hard work on this. This is a big case, and she's justified in asking for some assistance. Appreciate any help. thanks. --Sm8900 16:07, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I might see if I can't sort this mess out. I'll have a proper look at it later on tonight, and will mediate this case, then. It's a while since I've actually mediated anything much! By the way, Sm8900: just to let you know, Kim's a he, not a she. Of course, one never really knows on Wikipedia. :-D --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 19:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Woah! Wow, thanks man :-) --Kim Bruning 20:10, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Apologies, Kim. You did quite well, by the standard of ANY gender. :-) See you. --Sm8900 20:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

When (if) I have more time, I might still drop by a bit and help out, just for the heck of it. Jolly good flying start for the GMN today :-) --Kim Bruning 02:06, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

FYI

Just in case someone is wondering why a brand new mediator has taken five or six cases in a 24-hour period- I'm just pruning the inactive ones for the most part =P --Moralis (talk) 00:01, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Cool. --Kim Bruning 21:03, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Editor Assistance

May occaisionally snarf some simple cases off the queue and lighten our workload, hopefully. Do keep an eye on if things are going ok, since they are still pretty new. --Kim Bruning 21:03, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

IRC?

Should we have a #MedCab IRC channel, for easy exchange of advice and opinions on open cases? Would mediators other than myself use such a resource? Would users potentially use it as a means of contacting us? --Moralis (talk) 16:01, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

#wikipedia-medcab. Before that it was simply in #wikipedia. Medcab existed on irc long before it existed on wikipedia. :-) (the "cabal" in the name is partially a play on "irc cabal" :-P) --Kim Bruning 16:05, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

User-talk-page disputes

The project page says "Put the MedCab request tag on the talk page of the dispute.". What if the dispute is over material on another user's talk page? Andy Mabbett 19:51, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Put the tag on the user talk page. --Ideogram 21:18, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

From where it is likely to be immediately deleted. Andy Mabbett 21:21, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't matter. What matters is you can click on the preloaded request page link there to file the appropriate request. --Ideogram 21:41, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Mediators

Good afternoon (GMT time) fellow Mediators; I'd like to propose a clear-out of the above page, including:

• Removing inactive Mediators on that list (and notifying them);
• Requesting the most active Mediators to add themselves, if they so wish;
• Placing a link on our Welcome Mat, directing potential requesters to this list.

Any feedback is appreciated.

Kind regards,
anthony^[review] 11:38, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

We shouldn't even have that list. We had a similar list on the main page which I deleted because it was a maintenance hassle. How often do you want to comb the list for inactive mediators? People like to add themselves but people rarely remove themselves when they lose interest. --Ideogram 11:44, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

The list would be useful, especially for the purposes of assistance - queries about the setup, how to request a case, etc... It's not really a set time frame for re-examining the list for inactive mediators: about every two months, or other suitable quantity. anthony^[review] 23:54, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm not asking you a question about the time frame. I'm asking you if you want to be the one to do it. Because I'm not going to. --Ideogram 00:41, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. In addition, we already have many paths to assistance:

1. As every Wikipedian knows, asking on the talk page gives you assistance;
2. Users can also ask on Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Coordination Desk;
3. At least one user asked on Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Coordination Desk and got a prompt reply there;
4. Users who want to talk to an individual person have the choice of three coordinators.

So I don't see how this is necessary for the purposes of assistance. It may have other purposes, though... — Sebastian 00:48, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Completely agree, this page is an outdated duplication of Category:Wikipedians in the Mediation Cabal and should be moved into user space or deleted. Addhoc 13:55, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Was about to propose deletion, but noticed that it's of minor historic value, so I'll just mark it as historic rather than delete. Otherwise agree with above. --Kim Bruning 14:39, 25 April 2007 (UTC) Please be aware that the arbitration committee traditionally refers to members of the mediation committee as mediators. Please stay on the safe side of an RFAr, and say you're a person working on medcab mediations. :-)

Question about this page: Why NOEDITSECTION?

The page nicely explains why it has __NOTOC__, but is there any point in having __NOEDITSECTION__? — Sebastian 00:50, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Possibly to discourage editors from attempting to add their cases manually. Addhoc 13:52, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a strong opinion about this. Put it back if you like. --Ideogram 14:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Mediator desperatey needed. Case needs more opinions.

Hello everyone,

I have initiated a case Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2007-02-10_Boris_Stomakhin since February and only one mediator so far appeared. Please anyone come and be the mediator. Vlad fedorov 17:07, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

There is already one mediator actively mediating this case. That's all you need. Considering that we have six cases needing mediators, I hope that any other prospective mediators will rather sign up for those cases. — Sebastian 00:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I think either is fine. More mediators on one case has merits (and possibly actually might netto reduce the backlog faster). But a single one will work in a pinch. --Kim Bruning 03:02, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

You don't understand. We indeed have one mediator. But mediator requested the opinion of other second mediator. So the whole case gone stalled, because of him. We need mediator!!!. Vlad fedorov 04:15, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about the misunderstanding. It does indeed appear as if the mediaton has not moved forward since February, although I don't see that request. I will ask about it on the mediator's page. — Sebastian 04:56, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Distinction between Cabal page and Coordination Desk

Currently, that distinction is fuzzy. I would like to distinguish these two pages by target readership:

• Cabal page for
  • editors who want to know what MedCab is or have general questions and concerns
  • editors who want to file a case
  • editors who have been named as a party in a case
• Coordination Desk for
  • editors mediating cases
  • editors who consider mediating cases
  • MedCab coordinators

Likewise, I would focus the discussion pages on the same groups. Much of the MedCab-internal discussion, such as this one, would in the future take place on Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Coordination Desk. This should make this talk page a less intimidating environment for the first group of editors to ask their questions.

Does this make sense? If so, I'd move the case lists (Cases needing mediators, Open cases and Old cases) to the Coordination Desk. This would also address the concern that people just add their cases to the list. — Sebastian 18:34, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Don't follow your reasoning - if editors use the cabal page to file a case they would reasonably expect the page to list their case. Addhoc 18:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I see what you mean. Expectations are shaped by previous experiences. Therefore, people who are used to the fact that the lists were on the main page naturally will expect it. However, this expectation is neither God-given nor supported by any situations outside of this page. In fact, both the Mediation Committee and the Arbitration Committee do not list cases on their main pages. They have dedicated pages that list their cases. We have such a dedicated page, too: Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases. It would better conform to Wikipedia's interlinked style if we just put a link to that page on our main page. I therefore suspect that new editors would rather expect a link than completely transcluded lists of all current cases.

A related question, which arises from the comparison with the two committees is if we should maybe move the whole "How to file a request" box onto the case page, as they did. I don't think we have to do that, though. I'm fine either way; I just wanted to mention it. — Sebastian 19:06, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Case listings could be maintained on another page and transcluded to the main page. We maintain the main page listing, but having a seperate page allows removing the listings from the main page remains an option. Just a thought. Vassyana 21:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Don't understand the advantages of changing a system that appears to be working ok. Addhoc 23:51, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

This would be logical...

Only thing is *anyone* may pick up a medcab case. And the whole point of the Medcab page was always to list cases for medcabbers to pick up. At least, it's the raison d'etre of this page. (you didn't think the mediation cabal was just some wikipage, did you? ;-) )

Hmph... The case list is snowed under as it is already. Maybe we can shift the other cruft elsewhere as much as possible?

The other option would be a big GET HELP box on one page, and a GIVE HELP list on a 2nd page. Hmm.. Ok well brainstorming about tidying might be interesting.

Just remember that giving help is as important as asking for it, in a collaborative community (can't have one without the other). Don't hide the means to do that!

--Kim Bruning 01:03, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Hm, my edit from the other day has gone to the void. (Or more likely, the flakey black hole of my ISP, since I clicked send and walked out the door.) I agree with the distinction proposed by Sebastian between the main page and coordination desk. I also think Kim hit on something. The main page should focus on an overview of MedCab and "getting help". The coordination desk should focus on internal workings and "giving help". Upon thought, I don't really see the need for transcluding the case page. Both the main page and coordination desk could have clearly visible links to the case page. Requesters and mediators could easily reference the page for their own purposes. Cheers! Vassyana 17:24, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Editing the cases page

We really need to get people to stop doing this. --Ideogram 21:19, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Open tasks

It's not a good idea to encourage anyone to edit this, since there are specific conventions as to which and how many cases should be added. --Medcabemail 21:36, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

If folks are confused, is there a way to unconfuse them? Perhaps protect the main page, with a big note saying "Look HERE, Do ->>>>THIS<<<<- to edit, clever!" ;-)

Finally, if editing is a problem, maybe we need to have a janitor sweep things up. First and foremost, we want it to be easy for people to join cases, right?

--Kim Bruning 22:03, 29 April 2007 (UTC)