Wikipedia talk:Mediation Committee/Archive/6

Community enforceable mediation experimental rollout
Community enforceable mediation has entered a 90 day experimental phase. Other mediation venues often get backlogged so mediators may wish to refer some cases to this new program. Suitable cases would have:
 * Two disputants.
 * No allegations of sockpuppetry.
 * Aspects of user conduct/policy violations overlapping the content dispute.
 * Basically mature and reasonable participants.

Regards, Durova Charge! 15:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

WWII mediation
I'm not sure if this is the right place to ask, but the WWII mediation is not going so well. Could someone from the committee take a look, please? Haber 21:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm recused in this case, so I couldn't help. However, may I ask what your concerns are? If you do not wish to state so publically, I suggest emailing ^demon, the MedCom chairperson. Cheers,  Daniel Bryant  05:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The mediator disappears for long periods of time. Haber 11:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Northern Ireland infobox debate
There has been an ongoing debate on the Northern Ireland article's talk page for about six months now. The issue had come up before that too. In centres on what, if any, flag should be used in the infobox. I just want to get an opinion on whether this is worth requesting formal mediation for. All parties have made their points over and over, without getting anywhere. I suspect that if mediation is initiated this will just happen again. I'm also told that Arbcom will most reject it as a content dispute. Any guidance would be appreciated. Stu  ’Bout ye!  11:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Use of the Ulster Banner on Wikipedia
I'd be grateful if any of the Mediation Committee have an opinion on whether this situation is mediatable. I previously posted this request here. The issue started on the Northern Ireland page six months ago, over the use of the Ulster Banner (or any other flag) in the country infobox. It has now spread to the use of the Ulster Banner on templates and other pages. I'm not going to state my position as I want to present this neutrally. See Talk:Northern Ireland, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Flag Template, Talk:List of British flags, Template:British Isles, Template talk:UKFlags, Template talk:United Kingdom regions, Template talk:Country data Northern Ireland and probably have a dozen other places. This has resulted in numerous edit wars. Both sides have valid points and no outcome is foreseeable. Needless to say, this needs to be sorted out. It's causing far too much disruption to several articles. I'm unsure whether mediation will work, the issue has been discussed over and over. I'm told Arbcom will reject it as a content dispute, but I''m starting to think a enforced decision will be the only solution. Stu  ’Bout ye!  10:49, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not medcom but to throw in my $.02 this looks like a clear cut case of trying to remind everyone that the standard on wikipedia is verifiability not truth. Wikipedia has no intrinsic opinion on what is the official flag of Northern Ireland.  Wikipedia has no intrinsic opinion on whether the Ulster agreement should or should not be respected.  Wikipedia has no intrinsic interest in either offending or not offending the catholic population of NI.
 * Wikipedia has one desire. To find high quality primary and secondary sources and accurately reflect their opinions.  That's it.  Flag X can be identified as representing object Y if there exists a high quality source that says that X represents Y.  The arguments back and fourth that I see are about whether the sources are "really right".  Wikipedia has no interest in whether sources are "really right" (the search for the truth).  That's what's driving the edit war.  Get everyone to cite the best possible source defending their position.  Then act based on best quality sources.  jbolden1517Talk  20:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

What th—?
Mr.Z-man, who is not listed as a member of the Committee, has —SlamDiego 03:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * declared himself as taking a case
 * declared himself qua mediator as favoring one of two sides

I am now informed that there is a difference between the Mediation Cabal and Mediation Committee. —SlamDiego 04:30, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Well he's right. That case is a mediation cabal case.  Mediation cabal is a different organization which is volunteer based.  Mediation commitee is a closed system which is more formal. jbolden1517Talk  10:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Appeal
After the BadlyDrawnJeff block I've decided to file an appeal for Mediation Committee/Nominations/jbolden1517. That was the only disciplinary action I've ever been subjected to on wikipedia and it was based on IRC conversations that I was not even invited to respond to. Its been almost a year the injustice of that incident continues to be a constant source of irritation. I've decided at least for myself enough is enough. However virtually the entire committee has changed membership since that time. Further after the people I was mediating for (and other observers) in large numbers commented on the job I was doing. Quite simply I proved my qualifications well beyond what is normally expected. I request that either: jbolden1517Talk 15:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) The evidence be presented on wiki
 * 2) That the rejection be overturned since
 * 3)  the on wiki evidence clearly points to a long track record of overall a very high success in mediations
 * 4) A high degree of satisfaction and bringing the people involved in mediation to be regular contributors
 * 5)  That the one mediation where it was not true, my findings were upheld by arbcom and the people who objected found guilty of tenditious editing and personal attacks.


 * Hi jbolden1517. Firstly I want to make it clear that I'm just speaking for myself here, not the Committee. I'm not seeing the relevance of the recent block of Badlydrawnjeff to your MedCom application, which was about a year ago. There isn't really a right of appeal (save possibly to ArbCom and no doubt to Jimbo Wales) and the 2 oppose rule is fairly clear - candidates opposed by two or more members of the Committee cannot succeed in their applications. You were opposed by three Committe members. However, you are of course free to make a fresh application to become a member of the Committee and may wish to raise any perceived unfairness in your treatment last time in such an application. WjBscribe 16:38, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The issue is that things were moving forwards and then evidence against me was presented on IRC which is when two active members and one former member opposed. The relevance is the legitimacy of acting being taken based on IRC conversations.  Which is essentially what happened to Badlydrawnjeff, a conversation on IRC occurred privately and the admin made a judgment.  That is I certainly don't disagree with Ral315 or Winden17's right to declare that based on on wiki evidence they failed to support.  What I'm questioning was the legitimacy of coordinating action off wiki and discussing off wiki evidence off wiki.
 * And yes the next logical step after this would be arbcom. But I'm trying to make a good faith effort at dispute resolution with the existing committee first.  If you all (as a committee) make a decision to refuse to hear the appeal then arbcom will have grounds to take the case, otherwise I haven't exhausted other means of dispute resolution.
 * In terms of reapplication I'm not asking to be made a member. I'm only asking that the rejection of the previous application be overturned. That might but wouldn't necessarily have to result in me become a member.  A statement like (I'd assume demon would post this "On further examination the mediation committee acting corporately, has declared the original basis for rejection overturned.  Status of jbolden1517 is currently indeterminate") added to the page would be sufficient.  Then I could either reapply or not.   Or you could rehear the evidence.  That or a half a dozen other options would all be fine. jbolden1517Talk  17:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

There is no procedure for appealing a rejected request to join the Mediation Committee. The Committe declines to revisit the outcome of Mediation Committee/Nominations/jbolden1517. You are free to make a new application at any time.
 * For the Mediation Committee, WjBscribe 17:20, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Well thank you for taking the time and trouble to respond. jbolden1517Talk  17:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The new application should go on a new page. See WP:MEDCOM, and cmpose your nomination using the infobox there, appending "2" to the end of the page name.  Thanks, Martinp23 18:41, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you, but see above. I was asking to reopen the original and appeal it.  I'm not asking to reapply.  The status of the original not my membership is the point in dispute.  This is sort of like the Patty Hearst case where she wanted a pardon even after her sentence was over.  There wasn't any effect of the pardon.
 * My case presents a very clean example of the use of secret evidence, IRC and its long term destructive effects. While I might or might not want to mediate again its really tangential to the point at hand.  jbolden1517Talk  19:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Old nominations have no bearing on a user's status, and I can't think of anyone I know or respect who would consider your failed nomination as any sort of blot on your editing status today. It's no big deal in the scheme of things; there are users with multiple failed adminship bids whom I respect the same as I would an administrator.


 * To your point on IRC, my oppose had nothing to do with IRC or secret evidence. In fact, I can say with certainty that my reason for opposition had nothing to do with IRC (although for confidentiality reasons I'd prefer not to say anything else...)  But really, it had a lot to do with your response to Kim.  The lack of civility shown in your comment was striking, and is not a permissible tone for a prospective mediator to take.  You were angry at Kim for removing you from the MedCab, and could only respond with a sarcastic remark.  Mediation involves keeping a cool head during disputes, and you showed that (at least at that time) you couldn't.  That's why I opposed.  Ral315 » 06:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Ral what possible evidence could you be examining that involved confidentiality reasons that isn't secret evidence? Don't you understand that is exactly what I'm complaining about regarding the entire process? Its also the reason I think its a good precedent regarding the use of IRC? There was evidence that was what you meaningful made your decision on, "A user who I trust completely has raised issues about jbolden1517's work on the Mediation Cabal" which I never saw (no diffs...) that to this day you won't even discuss (yes Kim told you stuff). Nobody on wiki ever accused me of being a bad mediator (except for the one convicted guy and his friend). Even the people who thought I was a lousy coordinator considered me a very good mediator and certainly agreed with at the time that I was taking some of the hardest cases and driving them to conclusion. Even the coordinator who felt that Kim was god and therefore I shouldn't be part of medcab didn't dispute that medcom would be a fit. If you had been hunting down the quote you pulled on wiki rather than making a choice in IRC and then trying to find a diff to justify that would have seen a pattern of harassment and wikistalking (by Kim) as well as me attempting to resolve the problem like a mediator should. But you were made up your mind based on secret evidence. And that's the reason I think this entire application should be vacated. A trial occurred off wiki on IRC and then had on wiki effects. If this had been a genuine failed nom based on me taking an improper tone and responding improperly to Kim I still wouldn't be upset about it. I really don't even care that much about membership in medcom (at this point, at the time I was devastated which is why Kim did it). But that wasn't what really happened and what really happened is a perfectly good example of why IRC is pernicious in its influence on wiki. In many ways a better example then badlydrawnjeff's example because a year later the admins responsible still feel they did the right thing. Also they were very experienced admins with a long history of handling difficult cases. They just happen to believe in the use of IRC. In essence, "I examined secret evidence carefully, heard secret testimony and then acted". Moreover, you are standing behind it, which is good for a precedent. And that's why I think it makes sense as a test case. It establishes the precedent clearly of IRC. Better IMHO than the Giano case as well. jbolden1517Talk 11:00, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Neighborhood arbitrator checking in before things get too far along. If you seek arbitration, which policies do you intend to assert were violated, and what redress would you seek from the Arbitration Committee? Best, Mackensen (talk) 16:55, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Mack. I'm thinking of linking this case with the IRC related case or starting a new one. As I mentioned above I think is a cleaner example of the IRC related issues that are already coming before arbcom. What I would be aiming for is to establish precedent that People shouldn't be banned, blocked, tossed off committees, etc... based on consensus reached on IRC. I am not trying to establish any particular misconduct on Wisden, Ral or the Medcom's part other than the above occurred while policy on it was still vague. The result of the case would be that my previous nomination would be vacated, that is the process used to determine the outcome would be declared illicit and thus the outcome invalid. I'd want a note to that effect attached to the page (something like "arbcom has ruled that this nomination's effect be vacated due to illicit process"). At that point I wouldn't be a member of medcom since no nomination would have ever occurred. So the practical effect would be nil (except regarding clarification of policy). Again this is what makes it a pure case regarding IRC: Hope that answers what you were looking for :-) best, jbolden1517Talk 17:43, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) IRC discussions are secret evidence (even if they are technically open) especially when involving people who don't regular (or ever) use IRC.
 * 2) The use of secret evidence violates WP:CON, When there are disagreements, they are resolved through polite discussion and negotiation, in an attempt to develop a consensus.
 * 1) I'm not asking for any kind of meaningful redress (I'm only asking for a symbolic act)
 * 2) * In particular the stakes for everyone are really really low so hopefully there is no drama or passion
 * 3) The people who did it aren't apologetic.  This is what is would be confusing for the badlydrawnjeff case and
 * 4) Everyone agrees on most of the facts (in particular that the actions were based on IRC) which clarifies the issue unlike the giano case.

Some thoughts: if I read this correctly, you're pre-supposing that the Mediation Committee is required to function by consensus when selecting members, and that members conducting private discussion amongst themselves automatically nullifies any on-wiki decisions. I don't think that follows, and I'd appreciate extrapolation on these points. Furthermore, the Arbitration Committee has long taken the position (originally in Requests for arbitration/Njyoder), and is about to do so again (unless something drastic changes) in Hkelkar 2, that off-wiki evidence (IRC, chat logs, emails, newsgroup postings) have little or no bearing on the dispute resolution process as the events concerned took place off-wiki. In rare exceptions, such as the de-sysoping of Everyking, the off-wiki event was directly tied to a possible (and, believed, probable) misuse of admin tools on-wiki. Mackensen (talk) 18:05, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure you are reading this correctly. My point was there was no on wiki discussion. That wasn't even any off wiki discussion that I attended. There was off wiki discussion (IRC) involving Ral, Wisden and Kim about me. Then Ral switched to oppose and Wisden opposed. Nomination goes down in flames based on off wiki conversation. Essjay (also an IRCer) does some other questionable stuff which moves 2 oppose to 3 oppose. At no point was there any on wiki misconduct. The on wiki evidence is very clear cut. This sort of conspiracy involving IRC is what people who complain about IRC are upset about. Had everything just stayed in IRC I wouldn't have known about it (I use IRC 2x a year or so). jbolden1517Talk 18:32, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Let me put this a different way: is there a justifiable expectation that the Mediation Committee will discuss appointments on-wiki? Are they required, in policy or by convention, to do so? Is it fair to allege that members of a committee, who are expected to act in concert, are engaging in a conspiracy by discussing matters amongst themselves? Mackensen (talk) 19:26, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * First off I'd disagree that they are expected to act in concert on this. I think it is a justifiable expectation that the members of the mediation committee use the official channels of the mediation committee (so if there was private information Mediation-en-l would have been the right place for it to go).  But its not the method of coordination between members acting on information that's of concern here.  Rather the issue was having a non member (and not involved party) present information privately and off wiki and then acting on it without allowing for a rebuttal.  That is off wiki activity.
 * That is I'm disagreeing with their right to have a secret trial based on secret evidence
 * This case isn't disputing the right to private deliberations on facts openly presented (as per arbcom)-- though to be honest I actually don't think even this is a good idea for medcom nominations
 * Certainly one could argue that medcom members have the right to consider whatever evidence in whatever format in whatever way they choose without appeal or oversight (which appears to be ^demon's position below). That is that IRC can and should effect wiki.  But right now the argument made in most IRC related cases is that IRC in and of itself doesn't directly impact wiki at all, rather that IRC leads to on wiki actions which create other on wiki actions....  And that's why this is an important test case, because everyone agrees that IRC did impact wiki fairly substantially.  So assuming this went to arbcom and other position on IRC were upheld then the IRC becomes more clear cut for everyone involved.  jbolden1517Talk  20:14, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I think we're getting somewhere here, but as always I have more questions. You're taking the position that this was a 'secret trial' and that you were not permitted to rebut a third party's arguments, and that you were subsequently black-balled from the Mediation Committee. Now, each member of the Mediation Committee is permitted to vote as they please, based on what information they've gathered about a candidate. That you were given no opportunity for 'rebuttal', as it were, suggests that no member deemed your input necessary. The important question, then, is whether a member of the Mediation Committee is obligated to seek such input, or any input, before making a decision. The Mediation Committee didn't seek your input and decided not to appoint you. Were they obligated to seek your input? In effect, can Wikipedia policy curtail the off-Wikipedia activities of its users? Mackensen (talk) 20:43, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree these are very good questions! We are quickly getting to the heart of the case.  I'd argue there are several points here:
 * I guess the question for arbcom is, is that acceptable for a governing committee? Medcom is not just a private club it has official status and as such its activities represent wikipedia.  Lets say for example there were a member of medcom that decided cases based on race of the two parties and conducted outside investigations into race.  Would that be consider a licit activity for medcom?  How would his finding of fact be taken by arbcom?   I'd argue it wouldn't be licit and shouldn't be.  Outside investigations should be similar to what would be conducted on wiki and what would be considered acceptable.
 * I do think arbcom should rule that seeking input is mandatory before action is taken based on off wiki information gained from a 3rd party. So given the type of action taken I do believe they were obligated to seek my input before casting an oppose vote based on this information.  On wiki diffs are verified (people actually look if the diff says what it claims to say).  Off wiki information should be verified as much as possible and if verification is impossible discarded.
 * So no I don't think that arbcom should uphold either that rule that medcom votes are not subject to review or appeal nor uphold the specific grounds for those votes. And that would lead to vacating the votes and those the entire nomination.  jbolden1517Talk  21:08, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Despite your misgivings regarding IRC, the posting of logs or full disclosure of communications can be (and often is) a violation of privacy, and goes against freenode policy. That said, if someone was up for a nom and I opposed them based on an arbitrary factor (which I would be entitled to do), if I were to provide a diff of a typo fix to a page, would that qualify more than off-wiki discussion.  There is a private mediation mailing list, upon which concerns have already been expressed about your wish to join the MedCom, hence ^demon's message below.  ^demon is speaking for all active mediators there, as the current chairman of the committee, and what he says is fully within his remit, and true.  Therefore, I suggest that you take his words to heart. Martinp23 21:13, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Obviously, if arbcom/foundation rules that medcom can have a policy where opposes can be based on any arbitrary factor (like say race) then I don't have a case. The original actions were completely valid and I lose.  That's all that happens.  I don't see how that is much different than the situation right now.  But the very fact in dispute is whether medcom members can oppose for any reason without review or appeal.  I understand you and demon and perhaps the entire committee believe yes, I'm arguing they cannot.
 * As for the private mailing list, I'm surprised people care enough to express concerns and discuss this. But if so then good.  These issues deserve to be raised.  If it is happening without me having actually done anything, then I'm not unhappy.  What happened to me shouldn't happen to anyone else and if I can have a small part in preventing that then I am very glad.
 * Each and every single one of these IRC cases that comes forward help to prove that there is in fact a very serious problem with IRC. As it turns out there also happens to be a very serious problem with the medcom nomination process and the policies surrounding it.  That's a problem I just became aware of and frankly unlike the IRC related problem I'm not so sure its had much impact one way or another, but if those policies are upheld then it destroys forever the argument that IRC can't have on wiki effects in and of itself.  jbolden1517Talk  21:33, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Again, correct me if I'm wrong, but you're asserting that there's a problem with IRC because it was via that medium that a third party advised mediators of his/her concerns regarding you becoming a committee member. I confess that I find that a stretch. IRC is secondary if not tertiary. The real question is, as we've both suggested, whether medcom is allowed to have its own nomination procedures and whether the Arbitration Committee has oversight over the Mediation Committee. The answer to the second question is, as far as I'm aware, no. Both committees were established by Jimbo Wales with different mandates; the Arbitration Committee is not the supreme political authority on Wikipedia and does not have the power to alter the composition of other bodies. My understanding is that Jimbo retains but rarely exercises the power to review medcom appointments; you would have to seek redress from him. As to the first question, see above for the most part. Mediation as exercised by the Mediation Committee is governed by Mediation, but composition is apparently governed by the committee itself, with Jimbo possessing latent reserve powers. That there is not mention in policy of appeal, and that there is no precedent of any appeal of such kind occurring (that I know of, at any rate), suggests that there is no appeal process intended or possible. That's my reading anyway. Again, I think any question of IRC, mailing lists, or the corner pub is at least secondary to this question of governance. Mackensen (talk) 21:57, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Remember I'm not asking to be made part of the committee by arbcom. I can clearly see where there might be jurisdictional issues there. Again in terms of redress I'm asking for a judgement vacating the original rejection. That is arbcom would merely rule that they consider the process by which I was reject illicit. They wouldn't be asked to change composition of medcom in any way. Now I guess you could assert that arbcom doesn't even have want amounts to editorial powers, that is right to make a comment but I find that a stretch. Moreover even if this were true it still wouldn't matter. What key in this case is the finding of fact that IRC did in fact interfere with an on wiki process involving a 3rd party not present on IRC. That is IRC having an on wiki effect. At least in my reading of many of the IRC cases and disputes, the assertion is that sort of thing can't happen. People aren't punished for things they do off wiki. And that's something you missed in your summary. The complaint was made off wiki and the events were off wiki. As far as the IRC issue, arbcom could easily have a finding of fact that this is precisely what happened in this case even if they asserted they lack jurisdiction to correct the problem in any way. It was the IRC issue that started this whole thing. The medcom process are non appealable and not subject to review or oversight is apparently the defense that IRC abuse didn't occur. In other words abuse is impossible because Jimbo's intent in establishing this committee is that the nomination process would exist without any constraints of behavior. I think medcom would need to prove that in the case. Its a very strong statement. jbolden1517Talk 23:08, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that you also need to bear in mind that the Arbitration Committee has discretionary power to determine which cases it will accept for hearing and which ones it will decline to hear. Given the "governance/jurisdiction" issues that have been raised above coupled with the fact that the matter appears to be moot (in the sense that no effectual remedy could be granted), it is highly unlikely that the ArbCom would elect to hear the case. That would not represent either an endorsement or a repudiation of the MedCom's previous decision, just a statement that ArbCom elects not to hear the case. And since that is very likely to be the fact of any "appeal" to ArbCom you might file, my respectful suggestion would be not to file it. Newyorkbrad 23:12, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Appeal Request has been Denied
The Mediation Committee has our "two oppose rule". It simply states that any two Mediators opposing any nomination will cause the nomination to fail. It does not have to be for on-wiki reasons, it does not have to be for what you perceive as legitimate reasons, it just has to happen. For all intents and purposes, Ral315 could've said "Oppose because he likes the color blue and I don't." While it wouldn't necessarily be fair, it would still be within our policies. As two oppositions were the cause of your nomination's failure, it is essentially a moot point. Off-wiki discussions (via IRC and our mailing list) are very valuable to our decision making process on accepting/declining new nominations to the Committee. As Anthony is aware, we discussed his first nomination off-wiki on the mailing list. You don't see him looking to get it overturned, do you? He simply waited and then reapplied. Finally, other than in our conduct as individual editors, the Arbitration Committee holds no jurisdiction over our functionality as an official Wikipedia Committee, just as they have no say in what goes into the Signpost, what features articles go on the homepage, or (while it existed) who the leaders of Esperanza were. We were co-founded by Jimbo for different purposes, and we do not hold a checks-and-balances system over each other. We are designed to function individually and by our own means and processes, which we have done for almost three and a half years without incident. Further attempts to make a point about off-wiki communications by disrupting this Committee will not be tolerated and I respectfully ask you to stop. Simply put, your original request to have us revisit your nomination has been denied, the Mediation Committee will not allow our processes to go before Arbitration, and it should be left at that.
 * As Chairman, for Mediation Committee, ^ demon [omg plz] 18:26, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Understood, the request was denied. Its now moving on to the next stage.  That you decide what arbcom can or cannot discuss is not agreed to.   That's up to them.  I most certainly do not agree that just because you state something that your actions are not to be accepted without question.  Unless I woke up this morning in Iran the policy that you are proposing that governing committees have the right to take any action, that it should be considered permanent and irreversible and that it is not subject to appeal are simply unacceptable.  Things like the right to approach governing authorities for a redress of wrongs committed have been rights that most English speaking people have had for 800 years.  I don't think I would be alone in this view regarding right to appeal.  I'm not disrupting anything, which is what WP:POINT is about.  I'm discussing, on wiki and raising awareness on wiki.  And if that had been done in a year ago we wouldn't be here.
 * You aren't obligated to participate. Given that you weren't even a member at the time I don't see any reason you should be so concerned.  It certainly isn't my intent to make you uncomfortable, but whatever your reasons I flatly reject your order to cease.  I question whether you have the authority to give such an order.  jbolden1517Talk  18:48, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The only person you could appeal to would be Jimbo. He's our oversight ^ demon [omg plz] 19:10, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

MEDCOM nomination templates
I don't know if you want to use them, but I've just created some templates for you guys to properly close nominations for mediators.
 * Mediation nomination successful - for the top of successful noms.
 * Mediation nomination unsuccessful - for the top of unsuccessful noms.
 * Mediation nomination bottom - for the bottom of all noms upon closure.

If you want to use them then go ahead, if not, it's no big deal.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  01:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks Ryan. I would like to see them used, personally. I did some minor tweaking on the wording, but overall, very good :) Cheers,  Daniel  11:26, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

MediationBot1
I don't know if it's something wrong with the bot, but it left two identical messages of a mediation being closed on my talk page. Just wanted to let you know. Parsecboy 12:26, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * This is a problem which has reared its' head every now or then, and which I fix onwiki whenever I see it (you beat me to removing the duplicate notice on your talk, but I did the rest). I'll ask around and see what's going on. Cheers, and thanks for your comment,  Daniel  09:21, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Reactivating myself
I was moved to the Mediators Emeriti page about a year ago, and since then I have been enjoying my retirement. According to the various edit counters, though, this month has been my most active month of editing ever and I feel like my Wiki-time isn't being used as efficiently as it could be. As such, I have listed myself as an active mediator and I am ready to fill any role needed. Andre (talk) 02:45, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, there's some fantastic news :)  Daniel  03:42, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Seconded ;-) welcome back! ~ <font color="#ED9121">Anthøny 15:18, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Character Traits
What character traits do you look for in prospective Committee members? Dagomar 19:14, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Obviously such an answer would differ from person-to-person, and as such any subsequent responses will probably differ from mine. However, for my part, I look for the following (note that this list is not restricted to "character traits", as such): (1) a degree of civility and the ability to keep cool, including in the face of hostility (as such, being a sysop doesn't hurt); (2) previous experience in Dispute Resolution, for example links to cases successfully mediated with the Mediation Cabal; (3) an understanding of the voluntary nature of mediation, as well as elements of the text at Mediation; (4) having a large amount of community trust under your belt (again, being an Administrator is an example of this).


 * I highlight (in my personal preferences) previous experience in Dispute Resolution, which I view as essential in any potential Committee member. Hopefully this has being an insight, and if you have any more questions don't hesitate to post them here, or get in touch with me.


 * Kind Regards, <font color="#ED9121">Anthøny 21:19, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks Dagomar 21:51, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem :-) ~ <font color="#ED9121">Anthøny (talk) 22:05, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Paragraphs three and four of Mediation Committee. Also, I view the ability to be compassionate as one which is vital for a Committee member.  Daniel  00:16, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

MediationBot1 notifying User:Example
Recently, MediationBot1 has been sending mediation notifications to User:Example, which is not a real account (it exists, but it's not an active user). This is probably due to Requests_for_mediation/Sample listing that account by default, which means that in malformed cases like Requests_for_mediation/Evan_Dobelle (the case that triggered the posts in question), it may remain listed or even be the only user listed. Could whomever is currently maintaining the bot please see to it that it doesn't send needless messages to this account? — Gavia immer (talk) 19:34, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * That's odd; I'll drop a line on the Mailing List, and see what can be done. Thanks very much for taking the trouble to let us know! Cheers and regards ~ <font color="#ED9121">Anthøny (talk) 19:51, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Spam
Whoever is running this bot, it is spamming my talk page. Please stop. Crum375 20:21, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Discussion is in place to attempt to resolve MediationBot's incorrect running; until such discussions lead to an adequate resolution, I will block the Bot from running ~ <font color="#ED9121">Anthøny (talk) 20:34, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The problem has resulted from the deletion and undeletion of the casepage for the mediation in question. Apologies for the nuissance. WjBscribe 21:14, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I have unblocked the bot - I'm not convinced that there's a real problem here (the bot's been active for several months (more than a year?) and this has never been an issue before), and tend to agree with WJBScribe's analysis. The bot wasn't designed to deal with case pages being repeatedly (un)deleted, and, to be absolutely frank, I won't be changing it to make it compatible with this sort of thing.  Martinp23 21:35, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Three notifications?
Hello. I'm wondering whether it is normal for MediationBot to provide three notifications of a rejected case over the course of half a day. That seems excessive to me, and I wonder whether the bot is malfunctioning or whether I need to do something to stop the notifications. Thanks. --Tkynerd 17:50, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that. No, the Bot shouldn't do that. I'll look into and see what the problem is. WjBscribe 18:03, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for checking into this, and also for removing two of the notifications from my talk page. :-) --Tkynerd 18:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Reform?
I spotted this debate where some editors suggest the MedCom is in need of reform. This may be worth discussing, and this talk page appears to be the most appropriate spot.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  12:30, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the major problem with the people that were commenting was that they have no experience with MEDOCM or how it works and they fail to understand the process involved. There is nothing wrong with medcom and it does some great work, there's no point in fixing something that isn't broken.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  12:34, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Although MedCom is slightly bureaucratic, it is a net positive and I don't think it needs much reform. Andre (talk) 15:08, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It really needs no reform, IMHO. MedCom is trundling away as it always has - people seem to randomly decide that they don't like a particular group, for one reason or another (eg not being admitted, or falling foul of it), and take the move of MfD or whatever.  This, and the Wikipedia community's complete opposition to bureaucracy or (for want of a better term) separation of users through any voting process (other than, of course, RfA, which is generally a given for any sock that has been around 4 months) is frankly getting too much now, and is definitely causing my participation here to wane.  My personal feelings are that everyone who complains about bureaucracy or "power groups" on Wikipedia needs to open their eyes and see why they were necessary to start with, and remain necessary.  I think I need a wikibreak (again!). Martinp23 16:26, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be helpful if those who have concerns about what we do and how raise them here so a discussion can be held. We are very willing to respond to questions and enter into discussion. Some of the comments in the MfD are rather of the sort of "this sounds odd and isn't how other processes are run". This is true, but I think people need to gain a good understanding of what we are doing in order to determine if change is needed and, if so, to make positive suggestions for such change. If reform is needed, a case needs to be made for it and it is better for decisions to be fully discussed here than for the Committee to try and guess what changes the Community would like. So by all means, raise concerns on this talkpage - we will explain why we do things the way we do and perhaps with everyone talking things over better arrangements can be come to. We are particularly interested to here if there are examples of circumstances when either (a) the wrong people have been appointed (or not appointed) to the Committee or (b) of areas where the stucture of MedCom has meant that a dispute has been dealt with in a sub-optimal manner. WjBscribe 16:27, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

The few issues I saw in the MFD seemed to be related to the bureaucracy. This was, for the most part, inherent since the beginning of MedCom, partially because a mediator needs a high level of trust - a mediator needs to be able to hold the confidence of all parties involved, no matter what the consequences of doing so may be. The Chair position isn't really bureaucratic at all - we elect a member from within ourselves to handle the dirty work, assign cases, etc. I'm open to change, but there wasn't any discussion at the MFD about what to change. I hope some discussion will occur here. Ral315 » 22:27, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Reading over the MFD (which I don't really have an opinion upon) I see that the two main objections are (1) the chairperson, and (2) the approval process. I'd suggest that the first objection can be addressed simply by renaming "chair" to something like "coordinator", because apparently some people are missing the point that the chair isn't official. With respect to the approval process, it appears that some people want community to have a say in it, but I doubt that setting up a RFA-like process would really help.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  08:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree those criticisms were made. But how widely held are they? No one has come here to asks us why we do things the way we do or explain why this is of concern to them. I think change based of the opinions of a few people. The decision to have a chair was made in 2004 when Jimbo set up the Committee - with input from very respected members of the community such as Angela and Anthere. To reverse that now based on a few comemnts in an MfD seems a lasty hasty and reactionary. There are reasons why we have a chair and not a coordinator and why MedCom requires someone to play to former role and not just the latter. Simpy renaming the post seems a cosmetic step and misdescription is unhelpful. The chair is official in the sense that they are appointed by the committee to represent them and make various decisions, it is however not a position of power over the rest (i.e. it is not a "president" or "director"). As to the approval process, again specific criticisms would be helpful - the community often comments extensively on nominations and are in agreement with the Members of the Committee - where has our approval process produced the wrong result? I am can think of some changes that could work - for example having consensus to appoint determined my someone who is both a Committee Member and a bureaucrat to ensure the interest of both groups are given due weight - but that kinda feels more bureaucratic rather than less. We are open to discussing change and to making changes based on community consensus - but I think it would be a little fickle of us to make changes based on the concerns of a small number of Wikipedians in the wrong forum without understand either (a) their basis or (b) how widespread they are. WjBscribe 10:28, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Ironically you would know how widely held those criticisms were if the MFD hadn't been speedily closed :) Note that I'm not the one holding those criticisms either, I'm just playing devil's advocate here. But perhaps replace the chair with a sofa anyway :)  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  14:47, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm kinda hoping people don't need an MfD to express their concerns - that's kinda what this talkpage is for and as far as I know we don't bite! Still a sofa could work - better than a doormat anyway... WjBscribe 15:06, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * My only issue with the committee is the way users are selected. A committee who elects the other committee members, but deals with the community is not the way to go. I think it would work a lot better if the committee's input was weighted more (with nominations), but the two oppose rule was struck down. You are trying to determine consensus if a user will make a good MedCom member, not the thoughts of two members who oppose. Often times two users will oppose a RFA, but the rest of the community wants that user to be an admin. Thoughts?  H2O  23:44, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it's fixing a problem that doesn't exist. Ral315 » 05:53, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Let me flesh out a slightly longer response than Ral's. I still can't see a time when you could say that a good candidate was vetoed by two members over the objections of the community and the other Members of the Committee. I guess by nature of the people we appoint, the Committee tends to be slow and deliberative and not prone to rashness. Everyone has to work together so Members using their ability to oppose on a whim and without good reason would cause considerable friction and so simply does not happen. If you look through the history of nominations to join the Committee (all should be listed at Mediation Committee/Nominations), you will see that the 2 oppose rule evolved from a veto that was used much more frequently. The two oppose rule has been seldom used (in the sense of two Committee Members opposing someone others had supported). In fact nominations in the last year tend to be either from those eminently suitable or those who obviously lack mediation experience and Community confidence. In the latter case, the 2 oppose rule acts as a useful snowball clause in that it means candidate's nominations don't hang around forever collecting opposes. We certainly could move towards a simple majority of the Committee being needed - though I think someone would rightly feel uneasy about joining a group nearly half of the people on it thought they were unsuitable to join, so I don't know if we'd be doing anyone any favours. Equally we could have a crat (maybe one of the crats on MedCom) assess the consensus of all commentators - committee and otherwise - giving both due weight. The problem with those changes is that both add a certain amount of bureaucracy that we try to avoid. Its often one of the big catch-22 situations that removing the appearance of cabalism tends to result in bureaucracy and vice-versa. The 2 oppose rule may need to be reformed, but a replacement approach would need to avoid being too bureaucratic. Also, I think it should be born in mind with what care Committee Members put into deciding when to oppose because of the consequences of that decision - it is never something that is done lightly. WjBscribe 12:22, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * That's a much better response than I gave, of course :) Part of the reason that I don't see a problem is that it's a rule we're willing to change should a situation arise.  When I nominated myself for the Committee in 2005, there was a single veto rule, and one member, now retired, opposed me because he felt that, at least for a few months, no new members should be allowed.  Many Committee members felt that the veto was being used inappropriately, and added the two-oppose rule.
 * The two-oppose rule sounds rather flat, but is pretty much used to determine consensus amongst Committee members. In truth, I think that a candidate with two opposes might even be promoted to the Committee in an unlikely scenario where a lot of members, and a lot of the community, supported them.  However, I think the two-oppose rule still holds as a useful way to determine consensus, because in practice, no clearly qualified candidate has received two opposes.  Ral315 » 15:08, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

MedCom Clerks
Just a thought. It seems like the "chair" covers most of the stuff, but I think it would take a lot of the work load off one person. <font face="Verdana,Arial,Helvetica"> CO 2 22:09, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * This issue was raised on the list a while ago. Some certainly saw a use for clerk(s), however it was felt that with a lot of maintenance tasks now done by an automated Bot that the workload of the chair had been considerably reduced. Indeed, unlike Essjay who shouldered much more of the admin burden at times, both his successors have found time to be available as mediators rather than simply handling admin responsibilities. Ultimately I think the discussions staled with an agreement that all Committee members should help out as needed (after all the chair's handling of these things is more the default position than one of authority). I rather feel that with the recent cabalism concerns raised by discussions here and at the MfD, that appointing a clerk or team of clerks might seem to make that worse rather than better. It also raises the difficulty that some acceptance/rejection of cases is based on mailing list discussions. I'm not sure granting non-mediator access to that list would be appropriate from a confidentiality point of view. If experienced people wish to help out with clerking in important process areas, my impression is that WP:RFCU has a greater need than we do (indeed my temporary addition of my name to the clerk list has already lasted longer than I originally anticipated)... WjBscribe 22:30, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * We do not have any need for clerks at this time, as it is my role to do the limited amount of clerical work this page requires. Thanks for your offer,  Daniel  00:25, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Can't say I was offering, just a thought I had, since MedCom is suppose to be the sister committee to ArbCom, who have clerks... <font face="Verdana,Arial,Helvetica"> CO 2 00:35, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * It is the sister-Committee, but we perform totally different functions, and ours are less process-exhaustive apparently.  Daniel  00:51, 3 October 2007 (UTC)