Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Archive/1

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

m:uncivility

Please, I would be very happy to have some feedback on m:uncivility. It is no policy. These are just thoughts I had, and threw on the paper. Little gets done about use of threats, insults, swear words, personal attacks and such. And I am bothered by that. It messes with the community spirit, lead some people to leave, or shorten the time before the heart attack of others. And it rarely helps solving edit war. Thanks for any comments you might make.

Note : comments claiming the page is pointless, and I should spell english properly, will be added to the list of uncivilities ;-) User:Anthere

Hey, thanks! I'm glad to see you here. I think your suggestions and comments are both good and interesting. I agree with your sentiment and intent, but not necessarilly with every idea proposed as a soloution. There are many subtleties to be polished. I will respond more precisely in the future, but for now I'm off to bed. Its been a long night! cheers, JackLynch 13:40, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Sleep well Jack. It is a collection of thoughts. It does not mean that all are applicable or even suitable by some standards. But standards may not be identical among wikipedias themselves. May they give ideas and foster thoughts to the people here :-)
Jack, a "cane" is just the feminine form of a "canard" ;-) PomPom
ooo, neat. I had no idea. :) JackLynch 10:08, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Your ideas open up alot of questions PomPom. Is it ok to edit other peoples talk? Are we better off knowing if somebody wants to say icky things? What should we do w people who like to say nasties on occasion, but othertimes are civil and do good work? What if they increasingly become more and more nasty? when and where and how do we draw the line? JackLynch 10:07, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)

It's fairly undecided. See Wikipedia talk:Remove personal attacks. Angela. 13:16, Jan 17, 2004 (UTC)

Whats this?

Is this the "official" mediation/arbitration committee/grouping - or something different? Secretlondon 15:03, Jan 15, 2004 (UTC)

kinda both, I made it, and I'm not on the committe.JackLynch 10:08, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Just a note: mediation requires consent. That is both parties need to agree to the process. For a user to list another user here without that other user's explicit consent is just a complaint by another name. Bmills

I don't at all agree, but I heard such an objection from timstarling on IRC, and I reviewed the mediation article at length. It seems to me that consent is in no way required to get the process started, but very well might be to achieve absolote success in mediating. Of course, if mediation fails, other means may become necessary! I would like the complaint process to be a series of steps, rather than a chair in the corner, or a plank to walk ;) JackLynch 21:38, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Here's a professional definition of mediation from www.mediate.com:
Mediation may be thought of as "assisted negotiation."
Negotiation may be thought of as "communications for agreement."
Hence, mediation is "assisted communications for agreement."
Central to mediation is the concept of "informed consent." So long as participants understand the nature of a contemplated mediation process and effectively consent to participate in the described process, virtually any mediation process is possible and appropriate.
Consent is absolutely required. Bmills 09:03, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)
I agree fully. If one party doesn't agree to mediation then it has to fail by definition. -- sannse 20:53, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Mediation/arbitration

I intended to place myself on the list as an arbitrator, since I'm not on the official Wikipedia:Mediation Committee (yet, I'm trying!). But if that term already has some specific status (where can I learn more about that?) perhaps I should create a seperate title/catagory for myself, and list all the Mediation comittee members here as mediators? Also, I 100% agree w all mediation being done OFF this page, thats how I ment for it to have been set up. I think some mention of that other than "make your complaint in as few words as possible" might be a good idea tho... JackLynch

There's a list of arbitrators at Wikipedia talk:Mediation and Arbitration (proposal). Angela. 22:20, Jan 15, 2004 (UTC)

Hi Jack. A list of current arbitrators is available at Wikipedia:Arbitrators. We're not currently recruiting, but if we decide that we need more members, we'll be sure to let people know. In any case, there are plans to have some new arbitrators elected at the end of this year. Martin 20:09, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

suspicions

I'm suspicious. Jack Lynch has listed himself as both arbitrator and WikiTherapist, yet he himself has a (vague) complaint against RK. Sorry, bub, you're either part of the problem or part of the solution. Please pick one, and stick to it; or I'll pick for you (i.e., you're a problem :-)

I'm just one notch away from asking the developers to determine whether you're the re-incarnation of some hard-banned user like EntmootOfTrolls. But I'm still willing to assume good faith for now. --Uncle Ed 15:45, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Wow, thats not very nice at all. I STRONGLY request that you ask the developers to determine who I am. I'll even make a phone call, or fax some I.D., or whatever. Since you dislike the "wikitherapist" bit, I will remove it. It was placed there only after you removed me from the list of arbitrators, and after the comment above. Jack 04:50, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)

nice, a conflict... -- anon

Sorry about having been so suspicious. If you only knew how much trouble EofT caused; he proposed an anonymous user:Mediator identity, after having been hard-banned for various offenses. And when you simultaneously registered a request for mediation between yourself and another user AND listed yourself as a mediator, it reminded me of the kind of stunts EofT pulled -- hence my suspicion.
Well, it's nice to know you're a different person anyway. (Speaking of identities, check out my new edit page sig). --Unsolved Equation 16:57, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Jack requested I check his identity via IRC. A traceroute confirms he is in Dayton, Ohio. EoT was last seen contributing to MeatballWiki 4 hours ago from Halifax, Nova Scotia. For this and other reasons, I consider it very unlikely they are the same person. -- Tim Starling 05:30, Jan 17, 2004 (UTC)

The problem is I could be some other banned user. I want an end to this. How do I 100% confirm who I am? Maybe if I donate $20 to the wiki, my credit card will verify I am who I say I am? Jack 08:27, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Only if we knew the credit card details of all our banned users. :) Jack, don't worry about it. No one but Ed has suggested you are a banned user, and Tim has already demonstrated you are not EofT who Ed was saying you were, so I think the matter can be considered closed unless someone has some evidence to the contrary. Angela. 08:40, Jan 17, 2004 (UTC)

ach, ok. That sux that I can't prove beyond a doubt who I am. We should all have our IP's on display! How can I be me if somebody thinks I'm not... I want to be as real as possible :) And if anybodys in the Dayton, Ohio area, let me know! I'll talk your ear off about who I actually am over some tea ;) Jack 09:00, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Just upload a photo of yourself to your home page. You could also add an email address, phone address, dead tree mail address, etc. If you've been a member of other communities, link to your front lawn on the community in question (and link back here). It's up to you how much you want to embrace vulnerability to the community, of course. You can also log out, make an edit to your home page, and log in again and "claim" that edit: this comes close to placing your IP address on display, if only temporarilly. Martin 12:50, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Not that you have to do any of that. I don't think there has been any serious accusation of you being a banned user anyway, and those on IRC already know your IP. Angela. 13:16, Jan 17, 2004 (UTC)

removing, replacing, and otherwise rearranging Jacks complaints

I've removed JackLynch's complaint about Lord Kenneth. An isolated incident is not really suitable for mediation. If the dispute that caused the comment needs mediation then perhaps both parties can get together make a request.

I also removed the "problems solved" section, which I don't think will be helpful (looks too much like a score card to me) -- sannse 20:13, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I find what you did highly innappropriate. I previously removed my original request for mediation with RK. I feel that matter to be resolved, as far as I am concerned. On the other hand, I am experiencing ongoing problems with kenneth, and your opinion that that was an isolated incident is clearly based on a severe lack of investigation. Take a look at wikipedia:conflicts between users.


Additionally, I do not aggree to mediation mediated by User:Ed Poor at this time.


I also clearly question your judgement in having independantly, and without either investigation, nor consultation with the parties involved, altered the requests on this page. Jack 02:50, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Did you first climbed the Wikipedia:conflict resolution steps before coming here ?:You may discuss this with Jimbo Wales. You may not agree to be in a mediation session with Ed yourself, but your opinion over mediation involving Ed and other people is hardly relevant here.
that reminds me that we should discuss what would happen were the members of the mediation committee be involved in mediation as disputant. Anthere


Yes, I did. Please don't cut up my text in talk. This is exactly the place to question Ed's skills as a mediator, but I don't mean to spend much time on that, and am not asking to have a mediation between me and ed ;) (or me and RK, anymore). I am asking to have non-ed mediation with kenneth. Me and ed don't appear to have hit it off. Rather than feeling calmed, or listened to, I feel rebuked and mistreated by the entire process of requesting mediation and creating this page. Clearly there are deep faults in this process . Jack 08:51, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way. We are obviously having a misunderstanding and I hope we can resolve that.
I think the first point to explain is that the text you thought was written by me was from Anthere. She did sign her comments, but split them up to make it clearer which of your comment she was replying too (I don't tend to do this, but it's a common format on talk pages). The relevant edit is this one: [1]
You are right that there are deep faults in the mediation process, but that's because we only really started developing the process this week. It will take a little time for our ideas to develop and a standard process to be worked out. This initial stage is likely to be the most difficult and the time when we are least effective. But hopefully we can work out a process that really makes a difference in conflict resolution. I hope you will bear with us and give us a little time to become an effective group.
I'm glad you feel your conflict with RK is resolved. My intention was not to bring that up again but to summarise what I understood to be the current position with that mediation. I didn't want to remove the request without comment (I felt the same about the LordKenneth request - which is why I commented on the removal on this page). I'll ask Ed to update the section with a better summary.
Getting on to the Lord Kenneth request... I understand that the specific incident you requested mediation over ("User:Lord Kenneth said mean stuff on my talk page") was not the whole story. That's why I said above: "If the dispute that caused the comment needs mediation then perhaps both parties can get together make a request." If you and Kenneth can't sort out your differences then you might agree to ask together for a mediator to help out. If you don't feel you can ask Kenneth to join you in mediation then a mediator could ask for you. But what's needed is an agreement from you and Kenneth to give mediation a try.
I understand your unhappiness with my rather bold editing. In future I will make my explanations more detailed. I think that we will have to continue to be quite bold in removing and reformating requests, it really is important that this doesn't become a duplicate of Wikipedia:Conflicts between users. But we obviously need to discuss the best ways of doing this as part of the development of this process.
I hope this rather long message is helpful. Please let me know of any points you feel I didn't cover or any other area we need to discuss. Regards -- sannse 11:33, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)

OK, thats confusing. I'm sorry I misunderstood, I went by the edit summeries, obviously I should have done a more detailed investigation. I think everything needs alot more discussion, and to be honest I am no longer very confident that Wikipedia:Conflict resolution is an effective and appropriate procedure. On the other hand, I think that the idea of several steps (pages) and one leading to the other is a good idea. Alot more work needs done, and while I'd like to be helpful it doesn't appear that there is a concensus that my help is appreciated ;) Jack 02:08, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Help is always appreciated :) and you have given us that by starting this page, which has helped push us into discussions on how this is going to work. I tend to find things are always slow to develop around here because of our community decision making process (true dictatorship always works faster ;). Hopefully we will get the process developed eventually and your confidence in the process will return. Regards -- sannse 16:35, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for your warm and refreshing civility. A little of that goes a long way. I could stand to learn from your even balance and positive demeanor. While I still think radical changes need to be made, I share your confidence that they are in the works (however slowly!). Alls well that ends well! Jack 02:54, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Interaction with arbitration

Jack wrote that "I am simply attempting to fulfil the formalities of the conflict resoloution process so that I can seek binding arbitration". Just to clarify one point: the arbitration committee has yet to decide the extent to which it will interact with the mediation process. We're aware of a range of opinions on the subject, and will be carefully discussing the matter in due course. Martin 20:15, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)~

yeah, I've noticed. Everythings up in the air... :( Lets hope it lands nicely! Jack 21:47, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Request for Status Update

What the heck is the status of my mediation? And, precisely whom is waiting for what? -- Mr-Natural-Health 14:33, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Give the committee a chance. You can't expect eveything yesterday. I believe they are choosing a mediator. theresa knott 14:41, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)
I was under the impression that you (MNH) had refused mediation with theresa but accepted it on a different matter (which hasn't been defined yet). That's what this meta page says, anyway. Who have you accepted mediation with, and have you expressed any preferences regarding the choice of mediator? Tuf-Kat 18:02, Jan 26, 2004 (UTC)
As far as I am aware, he has refused mediation of his behaviour and wants only to discuss content of alternative medicine. I am happy to participate in this limited mediation of content provided he promises to behave nice to me. So far, he has refused to do that. Fair enough, I am happy to see his favourite pages stay protected until the arbitration committee sorts out its policies. Alternatively if a mediator is prepared to act as a go between so that any changes that I suggest to the page are implemented by the mediator rather than me then fine, as long as I don't have to put up with his insults I am happy. theresa knott 18:48, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)
I am getting rather tired of the insulting comments made by theresa knott. We are not married, just thought that you might want to know. -- Mr-Natural-Health 04:12, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Check out:
User talk:Cimon ava
10 matter regarding alternative medicine mediation
Seems perfectly clearly to me. Plus, the matter of there being no arbibration means that the orignial mediation might be back on.
-- Mr-Natural-Health 04:09, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I have not check who did that, but I think it is not a good idea that old requests are removed from this page, while they are still under way. Please don't. I did not find reference of that request in the old request pages either. Anthère0 15:12, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, that was me. I was just trying to reduce clutter and get rid of everything past the "requests" stage. Perhaps I was too enthusiastic in my snipping. Tuf-Kat 18:10, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC)
I see hope in your enthousiasm :-) ant

I likewise appreciate you keeping the requests board up to date, and as free from clutter/bickering a spossible. Cheers, Sam Spade 04:18, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Important Clarification

Is the voluntary mediation process supposed to be a way to get people at loggerheads to come to reasonable compromises or is it just part of an illusion of due process under arbitrary rule?

I originally thought the mediation process was to get people to stop fighting and start talking.

Lately, though, I feel this process has been conscripted by certain users to prosecute personal vendettas under the guise of cleaning up the user base.

I appreciate any feedback here, I am wondering if there is even any point of continuing this process of mediation with other users. If it is merely a sham I would like to know so I can just cut my losses here. - Plautus satire 05:27, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The mediation process has nothing to do with prosecuting people. As stated at mediation, "mediation is the activity in which a neutral third party, the mediator, assists two or more parties in order to help them achieve an agreement, with concrete effects, on a matter of common interest". Angela. 22:13, Feb 23, 2004 (UTC)
How does quoting the passages allay my fears that it is not a sham? I appreciate your attempts to calm me down, but note the conspicuous lack of cries that, "Of course it's not a sham it is always just and fair!" - Plautus satire 22:43, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
What's the point in claiming it's not a sham? That's about as effective as saying there is no cabal. Either you think it is or you don't; I doubt I could convince you either way. Angela. 03:59, Feb 24, 2004 (UTC)
I also find it interesting you say it's not "prosecuting people". Where did you get this notion I thought it was? - Plautus satire 22:46, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
From what you said above: "this process... prosecute personal vendettas...". Angela. 03:59, Feb 24, 2004 (UTC)
Prosecution of a vendetta, not prosecution of a person. I have no idea what prosecution of a person means outside of a legal process. Prosecution of a vendetta would not be a prosecution in that context, it would be persecution. I realize it is only a couple of letters difference, but there is a very important distinction to be made between the two. Thanks again for your input. - Plautus satire 04:02, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Placement of new requests

Does one place mediation requests at the top or bottom of the existing list? This should be stated in the introduction, right before the list. Kevin Baas 23:15, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Arbitration

The What happens if mediation fails ? sections needs updating now that Jimbo is out of the loop... Martin 00:40, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Indicia

Whats up with all the text on this page, which should be reserved for comments. There are like four or 5 mediation pages - should they not be reintegrated, sorted, refactored and condensed? -SV 05:14, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Tuf-Kat

After having returned from my vacation (of sorts), I've not been active as a mediator. I don't particularly want to resign from the committee, as I may want to return, but a combination of personal reasons has kept me from being active. If someone wants to remove me from the committee, I won't complain -- since I am leaving on good terms, I wouldn't expect any problems re-joining if I want to at a later date. I should point out that I have done some mediation-related activities, such as forestalling a potentially destructive argument between long-term and well-meaning Wikipedians at Talk:Ebonics (admittedly, I was one of them). Anyway, remove me if you wish, as I will not be participating anytime in the immediate future. Tuf-Kat 06:04, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)

Hi Tuf-Kat -- I appreciate your message, and IMHO, I would like you to stay a member, even if you aren't terribly active -- as you might be someday later. I think that the larger the pool of mediators is, the better. And I'm glad you're back!
Peace, BCorr|Брайен 12:33, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I second that. I don't think there's any benefit in removing you from the committee. Angela. 20:50, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)

Sannse

I've been inactive for a while, but now hope to get involved again. I hope that's OK with everyone. I won't look at any of the older cases on this page - I've been to far away to assess them properly or know where they stand - but I'll try to be involved in some newer cases as they arrive. -- sannse (talk) 20:07, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Dispute between Herschelkrustofsy and Adam Carr

I posted this message for the mediation committee on the Requests for mediation page, but it was removed by Sannse as only participants are meant to post there, so I'm reposting it here instead.

I have just joined Wikipedia. I have edited only a few articles and created one, and have found my material being beseiged by three users who I believe are Lyndon LaRouche activists or advocates. They are user:Herschelkrustofsky, user:C Colden and user:Weed Harper. In fairness to Herschelkrustosky, I should add that he has been courteous throughout the process and has appeared willing to compromise. Nonetheless, it has been extremely time-consuming.

I would ask the mediators in the case between Adam Carr and Herschelkrustofsky to consider the amount of time the LaRouche advocates force editors to spend defending their material. It begins, in fact, to look like a modus operandi - the wearing down of editors by the sheer volume of corrections, deletions, additions, calls for explanations etc. In just over 24 hours, these three users made 33 changes, including the deletion of accurate information and informative links, to the article I created (Jeremiah Duggan) and a second article I had added information to (Schiller Institute). I tried to act in good faith and assume good faith of them, and was therefore required to address their concerns on the talk pages, try to see things from their POV, look things up, find other secondary sources, carefully re-edit the material to get rid of LaRoucheisms without also getting rid of anything accurate they might have added, and so on. It has turned into a full-time job. In my view, this is why editors might end up deleting material from these people on sight. It is not a vendetta against them. It is simply despair.

I hope the mediators will take this into account when judging this case. I also hope that Wikipedia will try to develop a policy to ensure that editors are not left isolated and undefended when trying to protect the integrity of articles against the advocates of what is widely perceived as a cult. I support Wikipedia's open policies, but I feel that LaRouche material falls into the category of original research (which I believe is not allowed in Wikipedia's articles), because invariably it is hard, if not impossible, to find a non-LaRouche source to back up either the accuracy or the relevance of their claims. Slim 21:34, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, mediators do not judge -- they nudge. They attempt to encourage both sides of a dispute to compromise. I don't think we will have much difficulty in doing so -- believe me, the dispute over your article is mild by normal Wikipedia standards. Do you want to see real world-class niggling and endless nitpicking? Try Talk:Project for the New American Century. And yet, it is not frivolous, and it makes the final product much better.

Editing disputes are hard work, but essential to the NPOV policy. The process works fine as long as no one's behavior degenerates into invective-hurling and mindless revert-on-sight activity. When this occurs, mediation is essential, assuming, of course, that both sides will accept it. --Herschelkrustofsky 05:21, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This is the kind of unctious hypocrisy we have come to expect from Herschelkrustofsky. We wouldn't have disputes of this kind if a handful of cultists and fanatics such as Herschelkrustofsky were not determined to pollute Wikipedia with their propaganda. Adam 06:06, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Herschel, I don't doubt that the dispute over the Duggan, Schiller and Zepp-LaRouche pages is but a drop in the ocean. But I don't agree that the kind of niggling you have caused over those articles, or any other, has improved them. All you have done is cause me hours of work, and yet the Duggan article is almost the same as it was when I first wrote it. Oh, with the exception of the Tavistock Institute now being described as a front for British army mind control, or whatever it was you wrote.
What you will end up doing is driving editors away who may have had a decent contribution to make. If I genuinely thought your aim was to protect the NPOV policy, I would grin and bear the niggling, but your aim -- it seems to me -- is only to insert material favorable to Lyndon LaRouche, his organization and his point of view. And to drive anyone crazy who disagrees with you. And in those aims, you are singularly successful.
Can you point me to articles you have edited that have nothing to do with LaRouche or his views, and to which you have added material that has no connection whatsoever to the LaRouche organization?
Read the Helga Zepp-LaRouche page as an example of a page not being improved by LaRouche advocates. It is a disgrace. She's a world expert on this, the best-in-the-universe on that -- whereas in fact it's a sign of her insignificance that no one can be bothered to argue about her anymore. And the Schiller Institute page. It's all music, drama, poetry, and high culture. And then: oh, by the way, they're accused of being an anti-Semitic fascist cult, implicated in the death of a Jewish student who became psychotic after six days in their company, and whose passport they took it upon themselves to retain! But let's not make a big thing of it. And I had to fight to keep it in. You wanted that section to be reduced in size, but one of your associates deleted it entirely.
It's worth bearing in mind that the LaRouche organization believes that the Beatles were a front for British intelligence. This is not the kind of organization whose representatives can claim to be NPOV protectors, not by a long chalk. Slim 06:38, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)

Slim is a fast learner! Adam 06:58, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

comment moved from the main page by sannse:

Adam, even if your views on the Lyndon LaRouche organisation are correct, this should be no reason to ban Herschelkrustofsky from editing Wikipedia. Everyone is entitled to their own beliefs. You might have a better chance in getting him banned if you can provide the mediators with some proof (history diffs) of unacceptable edits. Remember: no matter what happens, stay cool. Phrases like: "Lyndon LaRouche organisation, a corrupt, violent, fanatical, semi-fascist cult led by a convicted swindler and notorious anti-Semite." are what makes conflicts get out of hand. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|(talk)]] 19:05, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)

end of moved comment

Perhaps, but if that has a strong factual basis, it's unavoidable. Without commenting on the dispute, what I, myself, find very disconcerning is that this relatively marginal group/person(s) have thus far recieved more exposure on Wikipedia than whole countries inhabiting millions of people.
How late am I? El_C 21:23, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
A day late and a dollar short, El C.  ;-) SlimVirgin 21:48, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)

Are there any active mediators currently?

It's like they've all vanished since the conclusion of the arbcom election. Hopefully we'll get some new mediators who were formerly arbcom candidates in soon. Johnleemk | Talk 07:18, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

There are a number of mediation committee candidates. I would suggest you provide comment regarding their suitability, and suggesting additional candidates, to help out with the current shortage of MC member! - Amgine 19:28, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
And don't forget it is the holiday season; many of us have been kept from Wikipedia due to Real Life obligations. Unfortunately, this fact is abused by some to get their way. :( -- llywrch 17:46, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

As an AMA advocate I think the Mediation Comitee should continue making its work. There are some serious requests here that aren't being attended. Do something, please! --Neigel von Teighen 21:58, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Please keep in mind that we members of the Mediation Committee are volunteers, just like everyone else; in my own case, I haven't had the time to take on more than a few requests for many months. Also keep in mind that there is no formal committee; rather it's a list of people who have volunteered to help facilitate communication between individuals. Therefore, if you have a mediation request submitted, & feel a specific mediator would be a good fit to your situation, feel free to contact that Mediator directly. As with volunteers everywhere, a kind word of appreciation keeps people willing to volunteer their time. -- llywrch 19:35, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Forgive me if the message was too hard. I'm an advocate in a very big and hard case where a quick solution will make this not going to arbitration. --Neigel von Teighen 17:40, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
As I said, if the case is important (& it sounds as if it is), actively try to reach the Mediators directly, rather than passively wait for attention. Right now our chair, Bcorr, is unreachable because of the holidays, so that would be the best way to get attention swiftly -- which is admittedly one of the weaknesses in our current process. (If it is complex, you probably don't want my help in the matter -- I can explain offline.) -- llywrch 18:20, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Request to Admins

I repeat for the third time that someone responsible should remove any posts made by chriso on the project page at [this section] the project page says: "Please do not edit this page directly if you are not a participant in a case. Also, please do not remove content or move sections to separate pages if you are not a member of the Mediation Committee. Relevant comments may be left on the Talk page, and will be read in full." It says someting similar on pages like the Arbitration page. If a user broke the rules and added such stuff to the Arbitration page it would be moved and they might be blocked. Why is he above the rules please?WikiUser 19:42, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Mediation needs some teeth to be viable

I am a bit saddened that the original structure of the mediation process has stalled. This is a very important part of our Dispute resolution process. IMO, one of the main reasons why mediation has stalled is due to a lack of authority on the part of the community to consider anything agreed to in mediation to be binding.

So this is what we have; people agree to mediation, a great deal of work is done on the part of the mediator, and an agreement is made (best case scenario). The trouble is that the agreement is not enforceable by anybody. Thus the likely result is that somebody breaks the terms and nothing directly happens (except maybe a request for arbitration). Therefore all the work of mediation has no direct effect ; it is just yet one more thing to prove one side or the other has not been acting in good faith.

What the MC needs, IMO, is for the ArbCom to consider anything agreed to by parties in mediation to be enforceable (not by the mediator - who should remain neutral - but by the community in a similar fashion as ArbCom rulings are enforced). If one or another party to mediation consistently does not abide to what they agreed to in mediation, then that is grounds for an immediate and automatic referral to arbitration. The ArbCom will then very likely impose punitive remedies on whoever broke what they agreed to in mediation. These remedies would be for the underlying infractions (as now is the case) and for breaking a mediation agreement (not the case now).

This would give people one last chance to agree to something before the matter is given to the ArbCom and that body imposes something on them. That should give each party a bit more motivation to find an acceptable agreement in mediation. It should also help prevent mediator burnout by making their role as important as that of an arbitrator - perhaps more so.

I've already spoken to a few other ArbCom members about this and they seem to think this is a good idea. So, what say you? --mav 21:25, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

For the record, I am one of the other arbitrators that views this as a Good Idea(tm). -- Grunt 🇪🇺 21:51, 2005 Feb 5 (UTC)
Arbitration tends to produce clearcut outcomes: blocked for N weeks/months, banned from editing article Y for N weeks/months, etc. And therefore knowing whether someone has broken an arbitration ruling is a simple, objective determination. However, I think mediation is probably more likely to produce vague and subjective agreements: user A promises to participate in a good-faith discussion on talk pages before reverting, but user B then claims A didn't do so in good faith and asks for enforcement, but user A denies he broke the agreement, etc. In other words, to enforce with teeth would require some admin to make an investigation and a subjective judgment, which is really a form of one-person arbitration. -- Curps 22:04, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Except that in mediation, someone always has the answer to say "No, I don't accept this outcome." So it's really self-imposed arbitration. Snowspinner 22:17, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)
I think it is golden. Unless someone comes up with a show-stopper objection having to do with unintended consequences that we haven't thought of yet, I think this is going to be a great innovation. --Jimbo Wales 22:22, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I also think this is a good proposal. Take an example: User X and User Y have a mediation agreement. User Y agrees not to request arbitration against User X, if she/he does action Z, or stops doing action W. But if User X doesn't hold up his/her promise to User X and the community, then there can be automatic penalties without Arbitration. This agreement is to prevent going to Arbitration.
I'm thinking of cases like Everyking and 172-type cases, not Olliplatt and Rex-like cases. Mav said in IRC that many cases involve unreasonable people, and mediation is not a viable option there because such people tend to reject mediation. Arbitration can deal with those people. But we also want to give second chances to reasonable people before something is imposed on them. Ultimately, under this plan, everyone wins—User X and User Y agree without Arbitration; the Arbitration committee doesn't need to hear the case; User X doesn't get banned, and User Y has assurances that User X will hold to his promises. This is a good idea (however, we also should be careful if we adopt this to prevent people from gaming the system by making false promises). Neutralitytalk 22:46, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)
What I think is that a mediation agreement should be published just like an arbitration decision and be enforced like any decision on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Admin enforcement requested. If there is no agreement, refer the dispute to arbitration. Fred Bauder 22:52, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)
There is a need for mediation to be something more than just a nice chat between a mediator and two edit warriors. Enforceable agreements might be one way of making this work. I think it's worth trialing. Angela. 00:42, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)
Totally, absolutely, and unequivocally disagree. Mediation is an attempt to bring two users to a good-faith compromise voluntarily. If it fails then of course the case can be taken to Arbitration, but saying "you guys better agree or else somebody gets punished" is not anyone's idea of mediation. Vacuum c 03:04, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)
That is not the proposal. The proposal is to hold the agreeing parties to what they voluntarily agree to. --mav 02:41, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Has anything been done about this lately? It seems mediation is stalling even more. I rarely see many cases on here now, and those who are seems to get very little attention. Maybe I am wrong, but to save the MC we really need something like this. The MedCom also needs more structured pages/explanation of policies in my opinion. If this isn't done soonish, I am afraid the MedCom won't be used much anymore. Inter\Echo 09:34, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The proposal is to hold the agreeing parties to what they voluntarily agree to That makes a great deal of sense to me. El_C 09:39, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Chris 73

Since Emax has supplied no details on his dispute against Chris 73, can we remove that request? RickK 05:53, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)

[2]--Emax 13:16, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
It has been quite some time since the last edit to this request, and Emax has been absent since Feb. 18. I also think this is not the place for Emax's concerns. Can we archive this request? -- Chris 73 Talk 23:41, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
I have a whole lot of archiving to do when I find time. My apologies that I have not yet done so. If another mediator (heck, if a careful user) wants to archive cases that are clearly dead in the water, I will be most grateful. Jwrosenzweig 21:20, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Thanks. No rush, makes no difference if it is archived now or in a few months. -- Chris 73 Talk 03:09, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)

Nagorno-Karabakh: Need HELP to solve the dispute

Dear Wikipedia mediation committee members,

I have just recently posted a request for mediation regarding the dispute over the content of the Nagorno-Karabakh page between myself and User:Rovoam. This dispute is quickly escalating and now turned into a new revert war. I am tired of endless discussions in Wikipedia and I am tired of constantly responding to Rovoam's extremely biased nationalistic arguments, exposing his speculations and manipulations with the facts. I cannot stop Rovoam from unilateral changes, and at the same time, I cannot retreat because, in doing so I would betray my principles and the very reason why I am staying here in Wikipedia. In short, I ask for your help. Please, do something to solve this vicious circle of reverts and counterreverts. I would appreciate any advice from you on how I should proceed further and deal with this problem. Thanks in advance!--Tabib 10:10, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Tabib, you have called me a nationalist. Is this your own NPOV? I would like you to prove this before we can discuss other subjects. And if you fail to do so, I would like you to apologize first, before we continue our dispute. Another option would be to meet face to face to resolve our conflict in court house. Rovoam 00:23, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Rovoam, please be aware of the Wikipedia policy Wikipedia:No legal threats. I hope that both of you can set aside any insults and anger and try to mediate peacefully together. I have put in a request to the WP:AMA to have advocates contact you both to offer help in understanding dispute resolution at Wikipedia -- you aren't forced to take their assistance, but I believe it might be helpful in this case. Best of luck to both of you. Jwrosenzweig 00:35, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

On the submission of cases to Mediation

OK, this might just be me, but looking at the page's list of Mediation requests, there's still a LOT of confusion on what exactly mediation is and what it is made to do. Content mediation, user interaction mediation, etc etc etc.

What the Comm. needs is a real simple sample page, giving a few sentences as to what types of disputes are right for mediation, and the correct format for submission. See this example page for what I'm thinking: User:Humblefool/Ex Mediation page. humblefool® 03:46, 23 Mar 2005

That's perfect. Dan100 08:58, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

Mediation doesn't exist here

i waited 10 days for mediation that did not appear. Now i am being hassled again see javier solana on this project page, and I do not want to wait 10 more days to get nothing. At the moment, from what I can see, there is no mediation here. please treat my case with urgency, and remeber I have already waited 10 days for a response. PLEASE! --SqueakBox 16:57, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry we didn't respond sooner...though I'll point out to you that on the 24th you left a note here saying that everything was fine and we didn't need to worry about mediation. I'll attend to your request later today as soon as I get more than the 3 minutes I currently have. Sorry about the delay, Jwrosenzweig 16:05, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Archiving

I've removed a huge number of cases from this page--they're in the page history, and I have them copied on a document on my computer. Should I really list them all as we have been doing? I fear that list idea isn't very workable. And in the long run, should we be going to sub pages so that someone doesn't have to keep cleaning this page? Any ideas are welcome...and if I should list them all and dump them in the archive, I'll do that. I just want to talk about efficient solutions, if we can come up with a better one than we currently have. Jwrosenzweig 16:05, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sub-pages as on the VfD page would probably be best in my view. Jayjg (talk) 19:00, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Notices

Template:Rfmf for answering requests. Syntax {{rfmf|target|name}} where "target" is the appropriate header on WP:RFM, and "name" is your plain username. -SV|t 22:50, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Headings

I'm wary of editing the project page, given the stern warnings at the top of it, but wouldn't it be better to list current requests under a heading "==Current requests for mediation==" at the top? That would make the contents list flow much more naturally than it does at the moment... Grutness...wha? 06:03, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

  • I'm hoping we could follow the method currently used on RFAr. Mgm|(talk) 14:24, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

My archiving

Yeah, I know it says "only members of the MC to edit this page" at the top. But the page was dying; something needed to be done! Dan100 09:19, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

New Mediators, new chairman, faster service

MGM has agreed to join the Mediation Committee and will serve as chairman, assisted by me. The chair will check the RFM page at least once a day!! -- Uncle Ed (talk) 21:09, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. There was a lengthy delay in the RFM for Terri Schiavo due to my failure to see the instruction to contact a mediator, in addition to posting. I'm sure this change will help others.--ghost 14:45, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Corrected mistake

I put the RFC on Pakistan here rather than Request for Comments, so I have moved the section there, sorry about the mistake. --Ragib 07:20, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Major proposed changes to Mediation procedures

I would like to streamline the page and the process as follows:

  • Those seeking a paper trail to "prove that they dotted all the I's" along the path to winning a "Gotcha" game need not apply. You want a ruling from the arbcom? Just go there directly, and don't bother us. We're busy, just like you are.
  • Any two people who genuinely believe in the mission of Wikipedia and want to help one another create the world's best encyclopedia are welcome to ask for Mediation here.
  • Post your name and problem below.

You want something done? Ask a busy person. I got no time for whiners and gamesters. But for people of good faith, I got all the time in the world. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 14:14, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

Does Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal cover your bases? If not, BE BOLD and edit, I trust you :-) Kim Bruning 14:25, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Request for mediation

Request for mediation on changes to article 2003 Invasion of Iraq pookster11 03:16, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Backlog

There's a huge backlog of requests. Would it help get things moving if we indicated which requests are being looked at, which have been accepted / started / completed / abandoned, etc.? -- Uncle Ed (talk) June 30, 2005 01:58 (UTC)

I just archived all of May --its almost July, AFAIK. It might be a good idea to make it policy to remove each completed entry --for example the Weblog request was answered and dealt with by MGM. (Yes, I got your email, Ed. Im curious what others think.) -SV|t 1 July 2005 00:42 (UTC)

Thanks, Steve. How about a re-organization? I'd like to create new headings, e.g.,

  • New requests
  • Sign-up / Need Mediator
  • In progress
  • Recently completed

And maybe another heading for

  • Cancelled
    • Withdrawn
    • No sign-up
    • No mediator available

I want new requests to go on top, where it's easy for users to place them. And I want people to see what progress or lack of progress we make.

We're here to help. -- Uncle Ed (talk) July 5, 2005 15:30 (UTC)

I usually like your suggestions Ed, but Im not sure more process is going in the right direction. Its also late, and Im not digesting all of what you wrote. But let me get this out: Certainly more interaction is a good thing. I think also this notion of choosing a mediatior slows things down. The head mediator should simply appoint one of us, even over user objections. If things dont seem to be working out, then someone else can go in. At least then theres something goin on right away, and the tasks of coordination and mediation are separated. Maybe this would even draw back inactives, who knows. SinReg, SV|t 8 July 2005 07:15 (UTC)
Good idea, Steve. You seem to have picked up my <||>smooth<||> vibe somewhere along the line. Okay, as acting head (while Mgm catches up), I will simply appoint Mediators. Let 'em squawk if they don't like it, eh? Uncle Ed July 8, 2005 16:00 (UTC)
(((the soothing vibe is indeed contagious))) (Or else a symptom of aging). ;) I deeply endorse your assigning of mediating mediators, be they squawkers or not. :) (Though we should update the policy to reflect our ...smooth... unilaterialism.) Sinreg -SV|t 07:59, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
PS. Would it make sense to dispense with the "both parties request" formality? Its really kind of a holdover from the excessive notion that MC needed to be excessively distinguished from AC. The ACs role is fairly well defined, and limited, leading it to be rather functional, and less overextended. Theres no comparison nor confusion IMHO, hence a little "proactive" responsiveness to RFM would be good. ? -sr, SV|t 08:19, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Reorganization

Reorganized WP:RFM, WPT:RFM, WP:RFM/header, MedComOpenTasks, Category:Wikipedia mediation, Template:mip (in progress), Template:rfm (for requests).

  • Problem with WP:RFM TOC comes from the MedcomOpenTasks template - needs fix). Fixed - was the id=toc leftover from the earlier MedCom template. Changed to id=medcom
  • CAT:WPM (and two subcats mip and rfm) need some use, but using them would mean forking this "official" page.
  • Sorting RFM by date wasnt working, and Im glad its changed. Likewise for Tem:MedCom...

More later. Tired of pixels. -SV|t 19:19, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Two proposed changes

Proposed:

  1. The use of Category tags to list RFM cases. Two tags, rfm and mip are used -- the first ones syntax is rfm|title, and the second is mip|mediator, once a mediator is chosen.
  2. The removal of all RFM section comments to relevant article talk, immediately after mediation begins. -SV|t 18:45, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

suggestion

you could just ban everyone who shows a second grade reading level or lower, that should take care of most republicans, sockpuppets, and flamers, then we wouldn't need such a page--172.128.124.231 21:02, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Discussion of Backlog

There was a (correct) statement made on this talk page on 30 June that there was a large backlog of mediation cases. Since then, the backlog has continued to build up. Requests that were posted in July are often being ignored because so many requests have then been posted on top of them. There is a widely held opinion in much of the Wikipedia community that the mediation process is broken. I think that the situation speaks for itself that the process is at least for the time being broken, although I do not have an explanation as to what is wrong with it. There are supposed to be several alternative mediation processes. Are any of them working in a timely manner?

I think that one consequence of the mediation backlog is that Requests for Arbitration are being filed prematurely.

Are any of the alternative mediation procedures working, in the sense of addressing disputes in a timely manner? Does anyone have any constructive suggestions on how to improve Wikipedia mediation (either via this process or any equivalent process)? Robert McClenon 12:26, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

I've done a small amount of informal mediation under the non-auspicies of the WP:TINMC (which apparently somebody has in mind to eliminate entirely), with varying degrees of success. Kelly Martin 11:33, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
Thank you. In particular, thank you for establishing the consensus on the Ted Kennedy article that the attack site link was non-encyclopedic. I assume that one of the reasons why someone wants to eliminate TINMC is that it does not exist anyway.  ;-) Robert McClenon 11:50, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
I think that another of the reasons why there is a backlog is that the number of editors is increasing, resulting in an increase in the number of disputes, but the number of mediators is not increasing proportionately. In fact, the number of MedCom members available for mediation is temporarily down, both due to the fact that people go on summer vacation in August in many English-speaking countries, and that two of the mediators are engaged in disputes themselves. I think that Wikipedia needs to have a policy of gradually increasing the number of mediators (and possibly of mediation procedures). Robert McClenon 11:50, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
I have decided to be bold and post some thoughts on what is needed in Wikipedia at User:Robert McClenon/Crisis. If this was not the right way to post my thoughts, I am willing to listen to a different answer as to where to post my comments. The number of mediators and mediation procedures clearly needs to be increased.

Two systems?

I was wondering what the differences are between RFM and TINMC, and why the two shouldn't be combined into a central system? It should be easier particularly on the newbies if there was no confusion. Radiant_>|< 18:34, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

I think that TINMC is meant to be less formal and less structured than RFM. I personally think that the formality of RFM is one of its weaknesses, but others may disagree. The two systems should only be merged if the informality of TINMC is used, because there does need to be an informal system. Robert McClenon 13:35, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Moving RFM

Ed, I'm curious why my RFM was moved to my talk page and not also to the other party's page. Thanks. Maurreen (talk) 00:03, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Radiant and Xiong

I respectfully disagree with Ed Poor in removing the Request for Mediation filed by Radiant with respect to Xiong. I do not see any policy that says that the filing of a user conduct RfC is a necessary precondition to mediation. A user conduct Request for Comments is generally seen (rightly or wrongly) as a step toward arbitration, or at least as an insult. I think that Radiant was trying to take the peaceful approach, and request mediation before being confrontational. If there is a policy that requires that a user conduct RfC precede an RfM, I would strongly suggest that it be changed. There is no stated precondition for mediation. The stated precondition for a user conduct RfC is that two users must certify that they tried to resolve the dispute. I think in this case that Radiant's method of trying to resolve the dispute is to request mediation. Robert McClenon 00:19, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, perhaps I read the instructions for RFM incorrectly. In any case, if two parties agree to Mediation, I will appoint a Mediator.

Also, I was clearing out the backlog. Feel free to re-post the request. Based on my knowledge of Xiong and Radiant, I feel this is likely to be a Mediation that will succeed. Uncle Ed 00:39, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

Radiant and Tony Sidaway

(Comments moved from main page.)

    • Just checking: this is the same RfC that you've said you're no longer reading, right? Nandesuka 04:01, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Absolutely. It was running something like two dozen in favor of my response to the complaint last time I checked. --Tony SidawayTalk 04:35, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
      • I think the responses were more nuanced than that; what I saw when I read it last — which was some time ago — was that the RfC itself was poorly written, and you garnered unequivocal support from people with respect to the issues raised in that initial, clearly poor RfC. Then there were quite a significant number of other concerns that were signed on to by a large number of people. It seems to me that wrapping those all up into the same bundle and just "counting votes" as it were is missing the point. After all, it's not a "request for votes on this user" but a request for comment. I thought there were some good comments there, and I think by dismissing them you're losing out.
      • Anyway, that's neither here nor there. If you really want to treat an RfC as a "vote", well, that leads to this question: suppose the "vote" was two dozen against, instead. Would you change the way you admin because of it? I'm honestly dying to know. Nandesuka 04:52, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
    • This is RFM, not a discussion page, so I'll respond on your talk page. --Tony SidawayTalk 06:47, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

(End comments moved from main page.)


Still awaiting mediation

Two weeks after the request was filed. Erwin

Mediation Issues

I would like to suggest that the order of steps in the dispute resolution process needs to be adjusted and restated somewhat. There has sometimes been a view that a Request for Comments should precede a Request for Mediation. I think that a distinction needs to be made between article content issues and user conduct issues. A user conduct Request for Comments, which is commonly used as the penultimate step before arbitration, is a more serious step than an article content Request for Comments. (I have suggested that it be renamed, but that is a matter for discussion elsewhere.)

The steps should (in my opinion) be:

  1. Discussion on article talk pages.
  2. Article content Request for Comments, if there are content issues.
  3. Request for Mediation (as the next step after discussion on article talk pages in the event of conduct issues, or after article Request for Comments in the event of content issues).
  4. User conduct Request for Comments (by whatever name) (if mediation fails).
  5. Arbitration (as a last resort).

Also, I would suggest that the Request for Mediation page be revised slightly to give more attention to the informal mediation procedures, and to state that informal mediation procedures can be used in place of formal mediation. More awareness of alternative forms of mediation might help decrease the formal mediation backlog. (So would more mediators. Informal mediation is a way of increasing the number of mediators by adding systems.)

Comments? Robert McClenon 11:32, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Mediation is the most difficult task at Wikipedia. I had intended to give it more attention after coming back from vacation, but I messed up. This caused a two-month delay while I dealt with the consequences of my mistake. I have decided to follow part of your advice and no longer do admin promotions or name changes. This ought to help me focus my attention on mediation, which you seem to think I have a talent for. I also hope that you yourself will be willing to serve on the Mediation Committee. Anyway, I appreciate your advice and have taken it to heart; I am middle-aged now, and it takes me longer to change my ways than a younger man might be able to manage. Uncle Ed 13:35, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
I assume that refusal to participate in mediation by one of the parties allows this step to be skipped. Nereocystis 16:43, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
I think that is correct, and it is also one of the things the arbcom will take into account when making a decision. Uncle Ed 18:12, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
I am middle-aged also, and that is one of the reasons I am more interested in changing the processes than in changing the people. Being middle-aged has its advantages, and one of them for me is a 3-year-old granddaughter. Robert McClenon 22:35, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Level 1 Headers

(I'm tempted to make THAT a level 1 header)

Hello everyone... To categorize RFM my intention was this:

  • New Requests
  • Active
    • Pending
    • Mediator has responded
    • In progress
  • Inactive
    • Moved to RfC
    • Dropped/Abandoned
    • Concluded
    • Inactive due to wikibreak of one or both parties
  • Archives

The reason I did this is because Pending, Mediator has responded, and In progress all show that we've looked at them and are different levels of being in work. Moved to RfC, Dropped/Abandoned, and Concluded and the Wikibreak of one/both parties should go UNDER inactive. The only way to do this was give New Requests, Active, Inactive, and Archives all level 1 headers to show the tree. However, MacGyverMagic reverted me, saying to never use them. I think we should never use them in ARTICLES, however it should be okay for organization's sake to use them here. Opinions?Redwolf24 (talk) 01:09, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Looks reasonable enough to me. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 23:57, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Why can't you use level four headers (====TITLE====)? IIt gives the same effect. Is this also frowned upon? Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | WS 00:10, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
Too much work, plus that'd be changing the whole RfM process. My method just changes the organization quick and easy. Redwolf24 (talk) 01:00, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I endorse RedWolf's proposal (as outlined above with bullet points). I don't like deep nesting. Uncle Ed 16:09, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Using the subpage's talk page

On a related note to the section above, what would people think of making it a standard that mediation, if it takes place on the wiki at all, should take place on the subpage's talk page instead of the subpage itself? This is the system currently in place at Requests for mediation/Jnc and Barberio and Requests for mediation/Sam Spade and Exploding_Boy.

This would have two benefits:

  1. Provide a slightly higher level of privacy for the mediation — if a mediation is happening on the wiki, the participants are obviously ok with it not being completely private, but a random user wanting to request a mediation should not have five pages worth of mediation in their face.
  2. Shorten the request page and make the headers logical (relating to Redwolf's discussion of headers). At the moment, the content page reads:
...
# 4 Mediator has responded
# 5 In progress 

    * 5.1 User:Sam Spade and User:Exploding_Boy
    * 5.2 Cberlet and Nobs01
    * 5.3 Sentence by sentence 

# 6 Process issue needs to be resolved

    * 6.1 Dispute between Nixer and E Pluribus Anthony, et al. regarding content/dispute status of global city article, et al.
          o 6.1.1 Users involved
          o 6.1.2 Summary
          o 6.1.3 Nixer's comments
          o 6.1.4 Marskell's comments
          o 6.1.5 Catherine's comments
    * 6.2 User:Researcher99 in dispute with User:Nereocystis and others
          o 6.2.1 Mediation begins here
    * 6.3 User:Rspeer in dispute with User:Fahrenheit451
    * 6.4 User:Jnc in dispute with User:Barberio

# 7 Inactive
# 8 Moved to RfC
...

...while really it ought to read 

...
# 4 Mediator has responded
# 5 In progress 

    * 5.1 User:Sam Spade and User:Exploding_Boy
    * 5.2 Cberlet and Nobs01
    * 5.3 User:Researcher99 in dispute with User:Nereocystis and others
    * 5.4 User:Rspeer in dispute with User:Fahrenheit451
    * 5.5 User:Jnc in dispute with User:Barberio

# 6 Inactive
# 7 Moved to RfC
...

Using the talk page allows some preliminaries to be sorted out on the original page, like selecting the mediator, and the mediation itself to be done on a separate page. Each front page would only have one section, so the headers on this page would not be messed up like they are now.

Thoughts? — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 02:50, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Good idea, we should implement this. Redwolf24 (talk) 02:54, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
Personally, I'm against this. The talk page should be for discussing the mediation, not for actually conducting the mediation. If you want to shorten the page, you could always place on the WP:RfM page "Mediation in progress. See ..." once the mediation has gotten off the ground. In addition, mediators could try implementing a workshop, like I have done, at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/.../Workshop. Of course, I'm always open to suggestions. Thanks! Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | WS 13:35, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
I like the format expressed by Asbestos, but Flcelloguy has also created a good format elsewhere. Let's keep the good ideas flowing, guys!
Also, where mediation should take place is an important matter of its own. In many cases the privacy of email or instant messaging may be necessary. Uncle Ed 16:13, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I'd be just as happy with Requests for mediation/.../mediation (I agree that talk pages ought to be for talk). What I was really trying to get at was simply 1) keep the main page clear of all this stuff, 2) Standardize our system: It looks like Uncle Ed's mediation went directly to the talk page, Flcelloguy's mediation went down the page (in many sections) and also to /workshop subpages, Andre's mediation just went down the page, and my mediation had some preliminaries and then went to the talk page. It looks unorganised, and it would be nice to standardize everything and make it clean for future mediations. — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 18:04, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Indo-Pak relations

Maybe Improv or SlimVirgin could help with this. They've both offered advice to the users in question. Uncle Ed 13:32, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Restoration of Dispute between Nixer and E Pluribus Anthony ... to RfM project page

Hello! I noticed the following mediation (which I initiated, and being mediated by CatherineMunro) was removed from the RfM page. I cannot see any reference to it on the RfM project page except as being 'archived.' While both parties are working on a resolution to the dispute, we have not successfully concluded our discussions/work ... nor has the mediator indicated this (to my knowledge).

Thus, this issue remains unresolved. As this mediation is still active, please restore it as before. (If there is some other reason for this 'archiving,' please let me know.) Thanks! E Pluribus Anthony 20:45, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

As this mediation is still incomplete, I'm gonna restore it. E Pluribus Anthony 05:13, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

In recent reorganisations of the RfM page, I've noticed that this mediation was again removed from the RfM page. This is the second time this has occurred, and by the same mediator (who is uninvolved with the current case). Although long in the tooth, the mediation has not yet concluded.

I think such removals are highly inappropriate without consulting participants beforehand; this belies the importance of ongoing cases and the utility of this page/process. Until a mediator can provide compelling reasons and or have the courtesy to explain why this was removed on both instances, I will restore it. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 19:12, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

RfM

I will be starting a page called "Request for media" (or request for photo). RfM will hence need a dissambiguation page. Though you should know. Any comments. --CyclePat 02:31, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I would strongly suggest using the Request for Photo title, or a subset of the RfM title, such as RfMe. RfM is a well known shortcut, and there is no precedent for disambiguation of shortcuts. For example, RFA is a common shortcut for both Requests for Adminship and Requests for Arbitration, but WP:RFA only points to Requests for Adminship; Requests for Arbitration uses WP:RFAR. Changing the shortcuts of well known pages is not something to do lightly. Essjay Talk • Contact 21:41, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-02-10 Zhuangzi

What's the story here? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 20:27, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't have any idea; I'd suggest asking the Mediation Cabal, since they handle thier own cases. The Mediation Committee doesn't have any direction/supervision of the Mediation Cabal. Essjay Talk • Contact 21:43, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Sorry — I wasn't paying enough attention when I left the question. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:17, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

NiMUD and Online Creation

Moved here from the main RFM page

Involved Parties

Comment: I've blocked 68. for incivility; see the talk page. 68. appears to have filed this somewhat incompetently on the other users talk pages. And it seems likely that 68. is a sock of YZ. However, it is certainly true that NiMUD and OC could use someone prepared to talk things through with the various parties William M. Connolley 23:15, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-01-24_Online_Creation and Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Rejected_2#NiMUD_article_and_online_creation_article. Checkuser showed that Eggster in those cases and Young Zaphod here are probably the same person. I'd still be in favor of giving mediation a go, though. (Please feel free to move my comment if/when the proper request template is used) Ehheh 00:03, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

User who made the request can't be bothered with reading any of the WP policies, let alone following them. He didn't even make this request correctly. Much of his activity is described at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Young_Zaphod and Category:Wikipedia:Suspected_sockpuppets_of_Young_Zaphod. He didn't bother with discussing any of his edits with the mediation cabal when it came up, and even accused the volunteer of being somebody's sock puppet (see Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-01-24_Online_Creation; I looked at his contributions, and the volunteer has many legit edits, and has made no edits regarding the subject at hand, and appears to not be anybody's sock puppet as far as I could tell). Basically, he has a history of making complaints to admin without following any of the associated procedures, and just wastes peoples' time in general. I agree with William and think that the two articles are pretty low quality, and that they won't get any better while Young_Zaphod/Eggster is editing them, however, I don't think that he's ready to cooperate with mediation, should he ever make his request correctly. So, I don't want to waste the time of mediators right now, but if he shows signs of changing his ways (and thus showing signs that he'd sincerely go along with mediation), then I'll agree to be involved with a mediation after he's cooled off and everything to the point where he won't be wasting the time of outsiders. Atari2600tim (talk • contribs) 01:33, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Bogo-requests from Sam Sloan

Sloan has entered RFRM's against myself and User:Rook_wave, using a nonstandard format instead of following the template as prescribed (I responded to the request against Rook_wave before noticing the template issue). He says we're both aware of the requests but I for one found out about it more or less by accident, through the request page. Could someone make the appropriate edits? As an involved party, I shouldn't do it myself. Phr 06:09, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

If the required format is not followed, the request will be delisted. I haven't checked RFM yet today, it's next on my list, so keep an eye out. If it disappears, and you are interested in participating, file a correctly formatted request, or ask the party who filed the incorrect one to do so. Essjay Talk • Contact 07:14, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Non-response timeframe

What is the time-frame for non-response? After how many days does a request get closed if one of the parties is not respoding? KimvdLinde 17:30, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Typically seven to fourteen, to give the editors in question time to make a decision on mediation, especially if there are several editors involved. There is no manditory time limit; requests may be removed as quickly or as slowly as the committee chooses. Essjay Talk • Contact 07:11, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Machsom Watch

The Machsom Watch talk page says there is a request for mediation concerning the article, but I cannot find it here. Can anyone help? Palmiro | Talk 12:41, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

The request was rejected. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Rejected_3#Machsom_Watch. Essjay Talk • Contact 04:14, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

An essay which may be considered relevant

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RFC/How_to_present_a_case draft Comment, edit, please. 14:47, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Falun Gong

I had a nice vacation, and am now back on duty. As usual, I've picked up a case which never was formally presented: Falun Gong. I seem to have a radar for this sort of thing.

Should this be listed in RFM, or the Mediation Cabal, or just kept under the radar, or what? I'm open as usual to any advice or suggestions. --Uncle Ed 17:30, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_mediation/Archive/1&oldid=1094643981"