Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/2005 Archive

Set up
This was a very simple thing to set up, and it's already functional even :-)

There might be some things that need changing in wording and so, but the idea of being informal is to be informal, if someone starts adding stacks of Big Stuffy Words, I shall chase them around the room and introduce them to my concrete overshoe factory.

Finally, remember, TINMC! ;-) Kim Bruning 01:01, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

As a moron, sometimes I have comprehension problems. For example, when I see Snowspinner (apparently) talking about mediation on this page, on the one hand, that seems good. But then I think, how can there be mediation if I'm not involved? And how can I be involved if I haven't been informed? Therefore I'm having trouble understanding A) the purpose of this page in general B) Snowspinner's specific purpose in talking about our dispute here. Everyking 12:50, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Fnord. Radiant_* 12:51, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm having more comprehension problems. Was that directed at me, and, if so, what do you mean by it? Everyking 12:55, 9 May 2005 (UTC)


 * That's a LOOOOONG story. (I can see the fnords! ;-) ), but let's stick with what's up :-) :


 * Nice to see you show up, and we'd like to mediate between you and Snowspinner, if you're ok with that :-). The Arbitration Committee will likely accept us as mediators, since the mediation committee seems to be slow or dead and we're handeling cases in their absence.


 * Finally, I think User:Wgfinley would probably like to talk with you, as he's likely to want to do some mediating. Drop him a line and ask him what's up!


 * 15:41, 9 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, I'm certainly OK with it. I'd like to think we could talk it out ourselves, without a mediator, but we do tend to get pretty hostile with each other. Not only different views, but also I think there's a lot of personality clashing. I think we each have trouble seeing where the other is coming from. Personally, I would like to be convinced that what Snowspinner does is for the best. I don't mind an occasional error in judgment. What's important is to have a good general perspective. Everyking 16:10, 9 May 2005 (UTC)


 * If you'd prefer to talk without a mediator, I am on IRC much of the time - drop me a PM. That said, I'm in transit today, so there will be large swaths of the day where the statement is untrue. Snowspinner 16:12, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

Nobody expects the Mediation Cabal!! Mwhahahah! --Wgfinley 00:10, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Moved from project page

 * I cite plenty, he just doesn't like em. he cites plenty, but I don't care how many cites you have, you can't put POV in the narrative. Chips an editorial alt. press journalist, so its 2nd nature to him.
 * Typical misrepresentation. I have had bylines in the New York Times, Boston Globe, Chicago Sun-Times, and Des Moines Register. Also write peer review sociology journal articles and my books have won human rights awards.
 * Hey, sorry, I had no idea, I edited your article (Chip Berlet) and I only knew about the high times work, and some excitement about a nazi priest or some such. Sam Spade 01:35, 10 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Apparently "proper" means anything left of the ACLU.

TINMC
There is no Mediation Cabal. Trust me, I'm on it. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 22:34, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

bad to worse
Mediation_Cabal could use some prompt attention, things are degenerating fast. Sam Spade 00:50, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, if things are degenerating, I suppose it couldn't hurt to simply take the high road and not fight anymore until some mediation can be arranged. Everyking 01:29, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

OK, roger wilco. Sam Spade 12:26, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Getting yet more folks to look in
Note that you don't need to do anything high falutin' to help out with the mediation cabal, just talking with folks, figuring out what they want, digging up interesting diffs... hey it can be fun to do this stuff! ;-) The project page is your first stop to see what's up. There'll probably *always* be something interesting, even if it's not all the heavy "arbcom or bust" stuff. Better that it isn't really, means that you can often solve problems fairy rapidly :-) Take it from there! :-)

Anyway I just talked with JamesF, and he said probably Sannse and Theresa might hold clues as to where to go wrt getting old school mediators to join in :-)

TINMC is a bad choice
The whole "There Is No Mediation Cabal" reads like an inside joke that no one should take seriously, and virtually no one who hasn't been on Usenet will understand. If the users don't understand the joke, or if they do understand it, but don't appreciate it, they won't try this method of resolving disputes. Anyone who's been on Usenet probably already understands a whole lot more than the average user about how written words can be misunderstood, and probably needs this service less than the average user.

The other important reason why I mention this is that by using this joke, you're already dividing users into two groups (those who get it and those who don't) and showing favor to those who get the joke.

If we're honestly trying to resolve real differences between users here, it isn't very helpful to dig up this old joke's corpse and revive it here. I'd be happy to attempt mediation, but I'm certainly not going to list my username as a volunteer on this page in this state.

If we insist on making light of the situation, why not attempt to put some cheezy '50s customer service kitsch into it? Or set up the page to read like an advertising brochure for a relaxing spa, or a zen temple? There are a whole lot of better models than the "There is no ______ Cabal" joke.

Looking forward to replies. -- Un focused  14:33, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC) -- corrected grammar  Un  focused  14:50, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I strongly concur with Unfocused. Imagine a dispute involving one or more users with imperfect English, what are they going to make of it? Kappa 20:55, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't care if it's a joke or not. If it helps bring harmony and unity to this project, then that's good enough for me. I will refer refugees from RFM here, if the need arises. Let them seek Nirvana from the nothingness. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 17:33, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't see how obscure references help to bring harmony and unity, they seem more likely to bring confusion and make outsiders feel even more left out. Kappa 08:35, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

User dispute
I know this page probably isn't the perfect place for me to have brought this case, but things are getting sour in a big hurry, and I really have no idea what to do. I don't know if it's just that no one's had any time to review my case yet, but if it IS in the wrong place, could someone please say something, and perhaps suggest an alternate course of action? I'm literally desperate here, and nothing I know how to do has been effective. --InShaneee 9 July 2005 01:22 (UTC)
 * Blarg, I know this is a bit late, but User:TheoClarke has suddenly stopped speaking to me and Angie (the user I needed mediation with, and the user Theo was trying to mentor), and although things were getting better, she still makes several problem edits a day. Any suggestions? --InShaneee 16:59, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Redir
I've redirected this to WP:RFM. TINMC is not a bad idea per se, but there are presently four such processes running concurrently, and that redundancy is not very constructive. Additionally, the name 'TINMC' is confusing to many uses, and this page has been dormant for over a month now. The four should join together in making one shiningly great process. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 09:58, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * I've reverted your redirection. Wikipedia should be run by consensus. Kappa 10:35, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
 * It has been discussed in several places and nobody has objected. As is obvious from complaints on this talk page (including your own) this quadruple system is confusing people. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 11:21, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * Where has this been discussed, and why was I not informed? Kelly Martin 11:27, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

We should have a central page, independent of the others, that discusses the merge of the mediation pages, and leave notes on the rest. (I know I've seen the discussion, for example, but I can't remember where. I visit a lot of places, but I can't be bothered to keep track of the location of all discussions.) Boldly redirecting is, as has been demonstrated, too bold at this stage. JRM · Talk 11:35, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Very well, it looks like the pages were more actively monitored than I initially thought. But, apart from the fact that I was too hasty, does anybody object to the notion of having one mediation process rather than multiples? And if so, which one (or combination thereof) should it be? Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 11:42, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * Excellent question, which I do not care for answering at this location. :-) JRM · Talk 11:45, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I think two steps are needed. First up we might want responses to requests here to be handled more quickly, even though they're only a small subsection of what tinmc does. Someone is going to have to volunteer. Perhaps you, Radiant? O:-) Secondly we show a lean mean process to the medcom and ama and ask them to merge to here (If inter is ok with that ;-) But step 1 first! Kim Bruning 11:57, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

I have not been informed of this discussion at all. It's nice of you to redir the page, but really useless, since the underlying structure is there with-or-without the page. I just created the page in the first place for some openness and intercommunications. I'd love to talk with the mediation committee and actually do some kind of merger though. Just haven't gotten around to it, and I'll need Inters' permission too. Kim Bruning 11:41, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
 * As we have spoken about this, you have my permission, although I have no respect for the MedCom. I do see the point in merging our different instances however. Inter\Echo 00:56, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

The Mediation Cabal, v2.0
I have just completed an overhaul of this system (following my new election as Cabalist-in-Chief by Kim and Inter) and generally improved the page and the process somewhat. I would be most grateful if people would advise me as to whether I have solved all of the problems raised here, or whether there is still more to be done. Comments, and criticisms, would be most appreciated. --NicholasTurnbull 04:33, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
 * very late comment, although I haven't seen anything I don't like. It looks pretty good. We'll stick with this. :) Inter\Echo 09:44, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Opinion of an AMA member
Hello, as you know, there's an Association of Members' Advocates and, as someone who deals from some time ago with the dispute resolution system, I'll give my opinion about this alternative.

The MedCab is not a bad idea, but it's not something users' are used to. Most of the people will agree that the MedCom is more known that the MedCab and principally because it is a confiable committee in Wikipedia. I suggest you to send a message to the MedCom offering help to them (they need it) and not to try to run against the official mediation channel. The idea is: go along the MedCom and so you'll become known and, maybe, official!

It's only a personal opinion, of course, and this doesn't represent the AMA's official position about this (for this, ask our Coordinator User:Alex756. --Neigel von Teighen 16:21, 29 October 2005 (UTC)


 * The acting chairman of the MedCom, Redwolf24, routinely refers cases to the MedCab when the MedCom is too busy to take them. Also, some people prefer the less formal style of mediation the MedCab uses to the more formal approaches of the MedCom.  MedCab and MedCom are not competing entities (which you'd know if you actually talked to their respective directors).  The MedCab has no desire to become "official" or "known" or anything like that.  MedCab works (unlike, regrettably, the AMA); there's no need to tinker with it. Kelly Martin (talk) 18:29, 29 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I see what you say and also understand it. If you need any help, contact us! We'll try to do our best and I sincerely wish you the best.
 * About your little thought about the AMA: yes, we're aslept. And I'm wondering what happened with all the things we agreed in January in the meetings and why has not been chosen a new coordinator. --Neigel von Teighen 21:21, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

WP:PAIN
Personal attack noticeboard. Seems handy to watchlist as an early-warning page. Kim Bruning 06:32, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Looking for work
I've been waiting for a case that interests me to come up but none have done so far. Will I be automatically assigned, I've been waiting for that. Wikiwoohoo 19:49, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Just hop in and do some work. Look up relevant policies if that hasn't been done, figure out how to get one or the other party talking with you, get them BOTH talking with you, get them even talking with each other, etc... Just one step at a time, and someone else can do the next if you have no time or will to continue. It's sorta wiki-style mediation eh?
 * Oh, and thanks! :-) Kim Bruning 03:58, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Sorry but thanks for what exactly? Can you explain? Thanks (as well!) Wikiwoohoo 18:16, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for dropping by and offering to do stuff of course! :-) Kim Bruning 21:18, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
 * No problem. Glad to be able to help! Wikiwoohoo 16:54, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

More places to find work

 * User talk:SlimVirgin, an independant mediator, maybe we can pick up some of the stuff on her talk page. But be gentle! I don't know if she'd really like an invasion.
 * WP:AN, WP:AN/I and WP:AN/3RR are all good clues.
 * ... (insert more here if you have any ideas)
 * And WP:RFPP
 * Right now, I'd say two places off the top of my head that really need mediators are the disputes at Talk:Rajput and Talk:Plasma cosmology/Talk:Redshift and the Gibraltar dispute at Talk:Disputed status of Gibraltar. Dmcdevit·t 04:31, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Also spotted AMA_Requests_for_Assistance

Timing out
It's getting close to a week since I asked for mediation, but I'm still waiting on a response. At this point, I'm trying to decide what to do next. I could lift my self-imposed moritorium on changes, which may well result in an edit war. I could also try to seek arbitration, but I'm not sure how much of a point there is in doing that. Any advice? Alienus 21:01, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Ah ok, well, the current main coordinator is ill, so I've taken notice, and just started nudging people to start helping out again starting yesterday, and it's only just ramping back up.  I'll be right with you. In the mean time, see if you can help out someone else on the tinmc page. :-) Kim Bruning 22:49, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Kim, if I had the interpersonal skills to be of use in mediating other people's problems, I doubt I'd be in here asking for someone to mediate mine. I did take a look to see if there were any issues that I was familiar with, and I did find one, but I don't think you'd really want me to get involved in it, given where I stand. Alienus`

Archiving - needed?
Is there any point to archiving mediation? I can't imagine it would be much to use to people, and old discussions are always available via the history, of course. It would be a lot easier just to chop old/closed cases. Dan100 (Talk) 20:23, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Whoa
I see some changes are afoot but I don't like the direction this is going. Making the request process more complex and adding more steps to the mediation really isn't going to help! I'd prefer we discuss these changes first. Dan100 (Talk) 23:08, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

My large Medcab changes - an explanation

 * The following was a reply left on my talk page that I'm cc'ing here Dan100 (Talk) 10:57, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Dear Dan100: I am so sorry, I should have really explained an awful lot of things to you about the medcab page immediately when you became a regular, and also I made something of an unfair assumption of control. You see, the thing is for a long time I pretty much was the Mediation Cabal - although others listed themselves on the page, I was pretty much the only mediator, and thus consequently have behaved as the dictator of the Mediation Cabal, the oligarch, perhaps. The old version (the one you reverted to) was my rewrite of Kim Bruning's original version of the page, after Kim asked me to take over the medcab and make it work again; at the time, there was nobody else active doing mediation on that page (well, almost nobody) and thus there was nobody to discuss the changes to the page with :) I should have recognised that you had now become a regular mediator, and that you would take objection to the changes. However, now I've completed them all and you can see them finished, perhaps you might see the advantages of the improved version. The older version, whereby a "cookie cutter" template was substituted onto the page for each mediation request, was in fact a stopgap version I knocked together rather rapidly until I had the time to implement a transcluded version. In the end, Kim and I decided that transclusion probably wouldn't work very well (as can be seen from the Arbcom page) and we decided a list of links to each request, having one mediation request per page, would solve the problems encountered with the old style. Let me enumerate a few issues: Indeed, I don't feel that the new version has lead to more complexity for the user - it only involves an extra step of pasting one more subst: on the main page, which I hardly think is difficult, and indeed it may be clearer how the process works now since it can be viewed at-a-glance. There should, in theory, be no more cases of people writing over each other's mediation requests, and also it should require less work maintaining the page. I most appreciate your comments on the above. If it really is intolerable, then I will change it back. However, I invite you to go over the page now I have changed it, and decide whether or not it really is worse or better. (It may have looked much worse before it was finished; I have migrated all of the cases over onto their own subpages). All the best, -- NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 00:23, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
 * The page became awfully, awfully long using a single page for all mediation requests. The thing is that although you raised an objection that I had made it more complex, in fact the old version was certainly more confusing; it was a real chore scrolling through the page for one solely due to its length. Some people, of course, still have slower connections to the Internet, or are using a small screen (such as a mobile telephone or palmtop) and the length that the page had got to would not really be suitable. As a consequence, it was a real headache wading through the requests.
 * Irate mediation parties tended to fill the main page with tripe. In particular, this happened on the old Bogdanov Affair case - the parties wrote huge essays about their feelings on the page, running into thousands of words (seriously!) and got even more upset when they were removed, merely posting even more garbage. Now, if each case has a separate page, people can rant away without it making the page non-navigable or becoming offended when the garbage was removed.
 * Chronology was impossible to maintain using the old system. As I'm sure you observed, the cases were totally out of chronology due to people posting at incorrect places on the page, and it was a real challenge working out which cases came first (especially since a few were left undated). It is much better that cases are handled "first come, first served" and that the oldest cases are dealt with, rather than left to rot. There was too much likelihood of old cases being overlooked (as they were) in the old system.
 * There was no at-a-glance indicator of case status with the old system. It was not possible to see a contiguous list of the cases and their positions in the mediation cycles; the new system of sections with links to each subpage solves that problem, since one can now simply move the link to the next section. (This wouldn't have worked with the old system, since it would again have made it impossible to sort the cases by date order).
 * Forest fires can now be put out simply by removing the offending subpage page from the list; vitriol and warfare from other cases won't now spill over onto the whole initiative as a whole.


 * I see, that makes sense! I saw a sort of half-way version that looked like it was going to be made up of transcludes (a la the ArbCom, as you mention). I also saw some "Stage A,B,C" stuff that looked rather over-formal... I'm glad that didn't make it through to the final version! Dan100 (Talk) 10:43, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm Baaaaack!
No one expects the Mediation Cabal!!! Ah, feels good to say that. I'm back from Wiki-break and am glad to see things are running very well. Right now there's a lot of junk going on over at AMA so my efforts will be focused there for now but I'm prepared to help out with TINMC whenever needed. --Wgfinley 01:58, 24 December 2005 (UTC)