Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal 2.0

 __NOINDEX__
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was  userfy. The creator is an admin and can decide whether or not he wants to simply delete it out of his userspace. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:24, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal 2.0


I am not entirely sure if this is a serious proposal or not, however it is marketed in a joking way and is so horrendously poorly written that I cannot believe that anyone would take it seriously enough to use it. If Tristessa de St Ange wants to create an alternative process, this is not the way to do it. Right now, all this is doing is creating confusion.  S ven M anguard  Wha?  23:54, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete or userfy to the creator. It's fairly clearly not a serious proposal; it's sarcastic humor. However, to be honest, it isn't really very funny, so it should be deleted or userfied. — This, that and the other (talk) 09:15, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. MFD arguments were written by someone who hasn't read up on their Dispute Resolution history ;). Definitely not sarcastic. Does include humor, because it's an old-school style process.  Compare WP:DRN, history at WP:MEDCAB, and see especially Mediation_(2005) . Tristesse happens to be one of the people who was previously a medcab coordinator.   Now we CAN argue that 2.0 is redundant vs. WP:DRN, but otoh, some functions of medcab are not carried out at DRN.  It might help to have a coordination location for medcom, arbcom, and ...certain other folks... ;-) to come together. I'll leave further arguments to Tristesse. --Kim Bruning (talk) 13:33, 11 February 2013 (UTC) disclaimer: original member of the mediation (reform) (2005) cabal ;-). uphill, both ways, in driving snow.   Now get off my lawn! ;-) dang kids 
 * Delete or userfy to the creator per nom. Half-baked. -- Klein zach  15:37, 11 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep, but add the humor template to the top. This is the type of thing I like to see come up from time to time! :) but if consensus is against keeping this in mainspace, then Userfy. --Yellow1996 (talk) 19:12, 11 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep and add humor template as necessary. MfD needs to loosen up, sheesh. Mackensen (talk) 22:21, 11 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Userfy to the creator or delete Tristessa has indicated to me in email ten days ago or so that this is a serious proposal, but says that it is overladen with too much humor for the moment. I see two problems: First, procedurally, the proposal has not been sufficiently exposed to the community through being proposed at the dispute resolution policy talk page, the Village Pump, or other such ordinary means and second, substantively, the idea overlaps other existing DR procedures excessively - especially Third Opinion - without being sufficiently defined as how to fit it within the concepts set out in the mediation policy (which is not the same as the Mediation Committee policy). In short, this proposal needs a lot of work before it's really even ready to be presented to the community, and then it needs to be presented properly to see if the community, especially the DR community, wants it to happen, and if so and even then needs to be integrated into the DR policy and promotional schemes so that people know that it exists. I would also note that MedCab only went away a few months ago (I was one of the final three coordinators) and that it went down as part of a planned revision of DR at WP, led mostly by Steven Zhang. While I'm not necessarily opposed to this idea, it's just not ready to go live yet and needs to be userfied until it is. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 15:13, 14 February 2013 (UTC) Additional comment: Please note that the !votes for "keep but label as humor" are, in essence, votes to keep the page but to nullify it as a real process. That would be fine — as a nonmember of the nonexistent Cabal I am all for humor (especially if it masks the existence of the Cabal. Which does not exist.) — if this had been intended as humor, but since Tristessa does intend for it to be a real process I doubt that it will "stick" unless Tristessa abandons that intent, resulting in the conundrum of keeping a page for humorous purposes which was not really intended to be a humor page. And there's not much humor in that. —  TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 14:24, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Keepose - Wrap in an enigma to place on a snail on a log that was found at the bottom of the sea. On Jupiter... which has no seas! Xavexgoem (talk) 05:29, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Userfy or delete Over the last year and a half, I've been working with others (inc TransporterMan) to streamline Wikipedia's dispute resolution processes. Part of that was creating the dispute resolution noticeboard, a high visibility board with some structure that's designed to resolve disputes in the most efficient manner possible by a multitude of volunteers. In my opinion, it's been a success because it created a many-to-many relationship between participants and volunteers that didn't exist in many other places with dispute resolution before. The Mediation Cabal was closed because it was a one-to-many relationship similar to MedCom, and the rules of MedCom were relaxed to make it more open, thus making MedCom redundant. Third opinion is a lightweight process that is used on talk pages in early stages of a dispute. DRN is somewhat formal and bureaucratic, there's no doubt about that, but it's this formality and bureaucracy (read: clear and direct instructions) that makes the process work. It's an simplified entry point into dispute resolution, making it less necessary to navigate all the other DR threads. While I have read MedCab 2.0, I am not sure what it accomplishes that existing DR processes do not. I also worry that the presence of another dispute resolution forum will confuse editors (and this is something that participants have mentioned as a barrier in the past). I think that if such a process is to be introduced, it should be further developed and discussed with the dispute resolution community first. One can't just create a process and implement it without discussion, even if you claim it doesn't exist. I get the cabal jokes, I do. But Wikipedia disputes can get ugly, and we need to deal with them in a professional manner. I do not think this process as written would accomplish that, and thus I recommend it be userfied until it can be further developed and proposed to the community. Regards, Steven   Zhang  Help resolve disputes! 12:01, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge to Mediation Cabal, because there was definitely never a Cabal, and merging this page to the official page of the Cabal (which never existed, you understand) would make it absolutely and perfectly clear that anything to do with the Cabal (which, again, never existed) is historical, and that there was absolutely no scope for quiet and undocumented use of the Cabal's template and category from those in the know, completely in secret from non-Cabal editors (not that there's a Cabal, in case I didn't make that part clear) who would have to go through WP:3O, WP:DRN, and WP:MEDCOM. — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 14:42, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.