Wikipedia talk:Mediation Committee/Archive/7

Participation in mediations in which you are not an involved party
Is this forbidden? Or are uninvolved parties allowed to join mediation discussions?  Yahel  Guhan  05:53, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It generally depends on the nature of the contribution (whether it's made in good faith to help resolve the dispute or not), although in some cases where previous dispute resolution has been deliberately disrupted by new users there may be total 'ban' on non-parties taking part (so much so in a particular recent case, that a decision was made to use our private MedComWiki).
 * In the case you are involved in (and presumably what sparked this question), although I don't believe PalestineRemembered phrased his contribution and edit summary in a way which I'd consider perfectly ideal, I felt that the contribution was made in good faith, and I thank you for replying to his comment in a constructive manner.
 * If a non-party user was to begin to disrupt the mediation process, a discussion would likely be initiated on the Committee's private mailing list with the intention of deciding to exclude the user from posting at the mediation page. As with all cases, the situation will be monitored and addressed as the need comes to hand. Cheers,  Daniel  11:02, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I have a feeling Yahel is talking about this. Judging by Daniel's comment above, I'm not getting the impression that there is some strict ruling on how to deal with non-parties commenting in disputes. However, perhaps there should be. In most cases, I personally don't see much that can be gained by having an additional, outside party comment in a dispute as if s/he were a party to a dispute. --  tariq abjotu  19:11, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It's generally up to the mediator to decide what course of action will be best for resolving the dispute. If the mediator needs more input in making this decision, the private mailing list would be used. Situations like this are the reasons why members of this Committee need experience in dispute resolution and a proven ability to apply discretion. Cheers,  Daniel  01:42, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * My opinion on the matter is that the decision should base itself around a central point: whether or not that Party is involved in the matter. After all, that is the definition of an "Involved party". If a Wikipedian is a party in a dispute, then logically s/he should be a Party. Having said that, in practice it is often questionable whether or not the party is, in fact, involved in the issue (except by making his- or herself involved through recent edits) - if they were, then they would have been originally added. Perhaps the parties are the best people to consult in this instance - in particular the filing Party - perhaps through a discussion section on the Mediation Location. Anthøny  13:24, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed, Anthony makes a good point - the parties as a whole could be consulted whether the person should be allowed to contribute to the case if someone contests that they shouldn't. The initial "I agree to mediation" signing often includes an aspect of "I agree with the party list, as well". If there's a problem, I suggest you email the mediator of the case and express your concerns, and let them make the decision what to do. Cheers,  Daniel  06:50, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Seasons Greetings
--Santa (talk) 01:09, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Much thanks, and Happy Holidays to you as well ;) Have a good one. Anthøny  11:04, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Notification regarding Chair
For the public record: will be taking over the co-ordination role of Chair of this Committee, starting January 1, 2008.

On December 1, I sent an email to the Commitee's private mailing list, detailing that I felt it was time the Committee discussed filling the co-ordination position of Chair in 2008. I cited the following: ''January 1 (one months' time) will mark six months since I was appointed as Chair of the Mediation Committee. The Committee has changed both in formation and other aspects since then. I feel that I should follow on from the lead of Essjay and call a Chair election, having held the role for six months. Although the documentation says the position could be held until I decided to retire, such an (in)action would not benefit the smooth running of the Committee in my opinion''.

The discussion that eventuated had WJBscribe enjoy the support of the entire Committee, and no-one else nominated themselves for the role — for the record, I sent the following to the list a few days in, to confirm my position: [The] demands that will be placed on my time next year [will be significantly more than they were in the end of 2007], and as such I feel that I would be doing the Mediation Committee and the community as a whole a disservice to take on the role when I believe that I don't have the time available to me to do it adequately.

I personally wish WJBscribe well in his activities both as Chair and Wikipedia in general. On a personal note, I still intend to be active in-and-around the mediation 'scene', and I will support WJBscribe and all my friends involved (ie. all members of the Mediation Committee) and anyone who needs it in such as much as possible. This will also free up some time to assist with the rewriting of a number of documentation pages which are out-of-date and not reflective of current practice.

Please note that any enquiries which would normally have gone to me should now go to User talk:WJBscribe, which (from experience) I apologise for burdening him with :) Cheers, and a happy holidays to all,  Daniel  09:42, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Binding mediation?
Wasn't there at some point an at least temporary possibility of binding mediation? Whatever happened to that? I can't find any reference to it anymore. John Carter (talk) 18:58, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:CEM, and it related to user conduct. No-one can issue binding results on content issues, not even the Arbitration Committee. Daniel (talk) 23:35, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Bot
Hi, just to let you know that your bot is posting the same notice multiple times to my talk page, and won't let me archive it. SlimVirgin (talk) (contribs) 19:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It keeps doing it, so I've blocked it for three hours until someone can fix it. Cheers, SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 20:09, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * How very bossy of the damn Bot. Thanks for letting us kmow - I'll chase it up. WjBscribe 21:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Request for review of Mediator Seicer's conduct
This is a request for review of mediator. Please note the following recent instances that seem to deviate from the mediator of conflicts template:

and. Under the page for "resolving disputes" linked to the primary mediation page, it suggests "Focus on content, not on the other editor" and "stay cool". Certainly a mediator should practice both traits?

Is this the standard of conduct that should be set for someone on a mediation committee? Netkinetic  (t / c / @) 06:40, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The area of Mediator conduct is a serious matter, and I will ensure that the matter is fully investigated. To answer your (possible rhetoric?) question, it is indeed necessary that Mediators remain cool, as well as neutral, per the Mediation policy. Regards, AGK (contact) 07:37, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Upon fully reviewing the evidence on the matter, my personal conclusion is that there has been no violation of the Mediation policy. Whilst it is indeed true that Mediators must remain calm, and focus on content rather than conduct, that applies only in Mediations, rather than as a general restriction on all contributions by that editor. Of course, normal policy still applies—but any violation of the "content, not the user" rules would be a Wikipedia policy violation, rather than a Mediation policy violation, and thus would not be a matter for this Committee, even if the user in question was a Mediator.


 * Furthermore, I am not of the opinion that there has been any personal attack on that page: primarily, I do not believe Seicer to be an editor who would interact without civility; and furthermore, whilst the temperature of that page is indeed high, I would not say that Seicer is disrupting the page. Granted, these conclusions are my own opinions, but they are logically based on the evidence and links you have provided. In summary, the clauses of the Mediation policy regarding Mediator conduct are applicable in a Mediation context only, rather than on all edits by the Mediator. Regards, AGK (contact) 07:42, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

The Committee has been made aware of this thread via our private mailing list. Any comments made to date on this issue, and in the future, reflect opinions of individual Committee members and not a consensus of the Committee itself making a formal statement. That being said, there is always the possibility that the Committee as a consensus endorses a statement by one member, but this should not be presumed or inferred unless it is confirmed. Should the Committee as a whole wish to make a statement, it will be so annotated, and likely be presented by the Chair.
 * For the Mediation Committee, Daniel (talk) 07:55, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Netkinetic, thank you for raising this matter. In the diffs you have cited, Seicer does not appear to be acting as a mediator or holding himself out to be one. Whilst very strict standards of neutrality should be maintained by mediators when they are acting as mediators, when acting in other capacities - as editors or administrators for instance - they should act as is becoming those roles. I some cases that will legitimately involve forming a view that there has been misconduct by a certain user. Whilst formal mediation is not suitable for resolving issues of user conduct, mediators are in no way restricted from involving themselves in such issues where the subject matter and disputants are not part of a case they are currently mediating. In extreme cases, serious misconduct by members of the Mediation Committee in roles unconnected to mediating formal requests before the Committee might be of concern to us we do not feel that this is such a case. If you feel that Seicer's conduct in this matter was inappropriate, you may pursue this through the usual channels for resolving disputes with other editors. It is our opinion however that your dispute with Seicer is not in any way connected to his duties as a member of the Committee, and is therefore not for us to review.
 * For the Mediation Committee, WjBscribe 09:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Complain about a mediator
How would one go about complaining about a mediator? This mediation seems to have gone badly wrong. One editor has made quite serious BLP claims about an author in the I-P conflict area, calling him "unreliable source at best and a malicious one at worst". He's never attempted to defend this standpoint, and yet, has been allowed or even encouraged by the mediator to hold out and stop others editing - now to ban other content from the same author. 86.156.111.207 (talk) 10:03, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for informing the Committee of your concerns. I have raised this matter for discussion on the Committee's private mailing list. It is likely that Chair will make a public statement on behalf of the Committee at some point, but in the meanwhile, any statements by appointed Mediators reflect their own, personal view, and not that of the Committee as a whole. Once again, in the meanwhile, the Committee will discuss this matter in private, on the Mailing List.
 * For the Mediation Committee, Anthøny  17:32, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

The general consensus on-List is, it seems, that no instances of Mediator misconduct are notable on Tariqabjotu's part, and ergo, that no subsequent action will be taken by the Committee on this matter.
 * For the Mediation Committee, Anthøny  19:28, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Please curb your bot
I do not care to have the formatting of my talk page arbitrarily revised, as your bot has chosen to do. I do not like &amp;quot; for quotation marks, and neither do my correspondents; it makes their comments less legible in edit space. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Oddly enough, the bot isn't supposed to do that. I'll look into its behaviour... WjBscribe 18:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Is it calling another bot, maybe? That would account for it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe I should investigate getting it spayed. In any event, we'll keep it off your lawn until the problem is resolved... WjBscribe 18:58, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * And on a leash, if you please :) Anthøny  20:11, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

quick question
I am curious as to whether the mediation committee has "clerks," similar to the arbitration committee and WP:RFCU. I assume not, but I figured that it wouldn't hurt to ask. Bwrs (talk) 02:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The Mediation Committee does not have Clerks, no; this is presumably because it has no requirement for Clerks, unlike the Arbitration Committee, which concluded at the time of the Clerks' creation, that it required them. Anthøny  18:06, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Temporary absence from MC
I'm relocating to another city soon (in the next two or three weeks) and starting a new job shortly thereafter. I'm pretty booked up right now, looking for a place to live and getting to know my new host city (Cincinnati, Ohio)and quite stressed about the whole ordeal, so I'm putting myself on temporary absence. I had planned to come back earlier in May, but a turn for the better in terms of job outlook and finally placement has made me put Wikipedia on the sidetrack for at least a few weeks.

I can't wait to get back into the routine of things :) seicer  &#x007C;  talk  &#x007C;  contribs  04:45, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

E-Mail
As a curious note, is the e-mail functionality working? I sent a message earlier today, but I can't recall receiving anything as of late. It may be attached to my old addy, so if someone can shoot me some mail, it would be much appreciated. Thanks seicer  &#x007C;  talk  &#x007C;  contribs  04:26, 28 October 2008 (UTC) Perhaps you have disabled deliveries from the list? A look here doesn't suggest so, but you should flick through your preferences (accessed through this page) to make sure. Traffic hasn't been high this month, however, so you may simply be missing what little email is going through Mediation-en-l at the moment. If I can be of any more assistance, let me know. AGK 16:52, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you mean the mailing list? I believe so; we're still using.

Clerking?
Hiya. I know that ArbCom has clerks for helping out with general cleanup and so on. Does MedCom have similar, and if so is there any need for a new one? [ roux  » x ] 03:08, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * No such office exists, no, and in my opinion there is no need for it. The matter was previously raised and the discussion in question is now archived here, if you are interested. The rationale for concluding that there is no need for Mediation Committee Clerks is the same then as it is now. Thanks for your interest, though, and if you wish to get involved with assisting in mediation matters, the Mediation Cabal is perpetually seeking editors to take a case! Regards, AGK 15:51, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Righto... and I'm already with MedCab :P // roux   15:59, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, of course you are. I've conversed with you myself in #wikipedia-medcab on a number of occasions! (Please don't be offended by my absent-mindedness. ;) Well, my response to the Clerking question stands, I suppose: the MedCom simply doesn't need them. Best, AGK 16:02, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

The first step
How you have had elected first members of Mediation Committee? I need to know 'couse I want to start a disscussion about it in ru.wpCarn (talk) 15:42, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

A technique for defusing disputes about statistics
Hi,

I'm proud of a technique that I devised to help defuse (or at least reduce to a low simmer) a dispute and, frankly, I was trying to figure where I could tout this idea and I figured this might be a place where it could do some good.

The Flight and expulsion of Germans is a contentious topic. Some of the biggest points of contention are the questions of how many Germans were expelled from each country, how many died, what the causes of death were and who is to blame. A few years ago, the article just said something like 12million were expelled, 2 million died. There were editors who challenged the reliability of these figures and the POV nature of the source. From there we moved to providing upper and lower bounds and then eventually listing a number of estimates and providing sources for each estimate.

Finally, I came to the conclusion that the historiography of these numbers was an encyclopedic topic in its own right and created Demographic estimates of the flight and expulsion of Germans. This article has grown significantly since I created it and I was pleasantly surprised to see how useful it is to have a compilation of so many disparate estimates in one place. The point is that a dispute about the reliability of sources can be redirected into the creation of an article about the differences between sources and their reliability. This allows the main article to simply state that there is a range of estimates while shifting the discussion about the range to the subsidiary article.

This is the reason that I thought it might be useful to bring this technique to your attention. The technique is not limited to disputes about statistics. As you may know, we have The Holocaust, Holocaust denial and Criticism of Holocaust denial. I have my doubts about having three separate articles but doing so does seem to have provided places for this information to reside.

I am working on Alleged fabrication of the Nanking Massacre which does something similar. It makes an encyclopedic topic out of the Japanese efforts to deny the Nanking Massacre.

Hope this is of some help to you.

--Richard (talk) 12:19, 20 March 2009 (UTC)