Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/SIG MCX

Involved editors
I didn't know who to include under the "involved editors". Maybe the instructions about that part could be improved? Felsic2 (talk) 23:04, 27 July 2016 (UTC)


 * (The following was posted at my user talk page. I'm moving it here for response. — TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 17:36, 28 July 2016 (UTC)) Regarding the request for mediation for SIG MCX, you're right: there are too many parties and with a minimum of five "accept" votes needed, I can tell you right now that's probably a threshold too high. If I were to recommend striking editors who contributed very minimally (especially User:Therubicon, who hasn't contributed in a month but also User talk:Faceless Enemy, who had one substantial comment but nothing else and User:DHeyward, who hasn't discussed anything relevant in a month), what would happen? Would you strike them? Would User:Felsic2 have to? Etc.? RunnyAmiga (talk) 00:04, 28 July 2016 (UTC)


 * The necessary parties, as a practical matter, are those who have been involved in the dispute and who might choose not to accept and continue to dispute at the article talk page any result reached at mediation. It's better to go ahead and list all possible parties and let those who are willing to drop out of the dispute and commit to going along with whatever result may be reached at mediation say so. I would note that DHeyward has responded, so that issue is moot; RunnyAmiga may have a point about Therubicon who only has a lifetime total of 51 edits with only 2 in 2016. If we get 4 accepts without Therubicon, I'll consider that at the time. For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 17:36, 28 July 2016 (UTC) (Chairperson)

Another reason I'm thinking of changing my vote
Given how hamstrung it seems like every process in dispute resolution is regarding participants' behavior, this attempt at mediation was guaranteed to be nothing but a contentious series of attacks mixed with restatement after restatement of already-explained positions. The restatements are probably necessary given the mediation process but the attacks, of course, are not. This cannot wait for sanctions against such clear-cut violations of policy. The only way to actually have a conversation is to require participation from Felsic2, Herr Gruber, Thomas.W, and maybe Miguel Escopeta with the imposition of an automatic 24-hour block for any violation of WP:CIVIL. Since mediation is voluntary while there's literally not a single admin out of hundreds on here willing to punish the literally dozens of policy violations collectively committed by three editors in that list (and at least two, DHeyward and myself, who aren't on that list), I'm still probably going to change to reject. This would have nothing to do with the arguments put forward, by Felsic2 or anyone else, and everything to do with the fact that constant violations of policy, implicitly approved by do-nothing admins, guarantees nothing will happen. RunnyAmiga (talk) 15:27, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
 * While we do not directly deal with incivility here at Medcom, neither do we allow it. Indeed, having a drama-free moderated discussion is one of the purposes of mediation. While it is up to each mediator to decide exactly how and how soon to deal with incivility, it's not usually a problem and if it does become an uncontrollable problem a mediator can either call on administrators for assistance or close down the mediation. It is not, however, within our scope of authority to require any editor to participate in mediation. It is, of course, your call if you wish to reject or wish to pursue sanctions. Nothing I've said here, however, should be taken to imply that I either do or do not agree with what RunnyAmiga has alleged above and I express no opinion thereupon; I am merely setting out our usual position on the kinds of things alleged. For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 20:32, 30 July 2016 (UTC) (Chairperson)
 * "While we do not directly deal with incivility here at Medcom, neither do we allow it." Uh, have you read DHeyward's remark under the "Additional issues" section? The second word of it was a violation and should have gotten at least a warning. Did you read Thomas.W's vote explanation? Or are you okay hosting bright-line violations of an ironclad, years-old policy but only until meditation starts? RunnyAmiga (talk) 23:43, 31 July 2016 (UTC)


 * If TransporterMan has any suggestions on how to get editors to focus on content instead of on me, I'd sure like to hear them. What's going on makes participating more difficult. Felsic2 (talk) 00:02, 1 August 2016 (UTC)


 * In light of his rejection of the mediation, what DHeyward said or didn't say here is of no ongoing consequence for any mediation arising out of this request since s/he will not be participating. Having said that, however, what I said above mostly refers to what happens if and after the case is accepted for mediation. (Which is not going to happen unless we get two more "accepts" by 19:36 UTC tomorrow.) Anyone who is interested in what tools a mediator might have to keep a case on track can see the "Control of mediation" section of the Mediation Policy. For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 21:50, 2 August 2016 (UTC) (Chairperson)


 * In light of his rejection of the mediation, what DHeyward said or didn't say here is of no ongoing consequence for any mediation arising out of this request since s/he will not be participating. I asked for a plain-English answer to a yes-or-no question and while this is, as usual, couched in unnecessarily vague jargon, it's still as close as I'll get: yes, clear, bright-line policy violations are permitted here. For that matter, please strike the sentence that starts "Anyone who is interested" because while "Anyone" could refer to people other than me, it probably doesn't and I don't appreciate the implication that I didn't read the section. I did. And I thought the words "without the incivility" mean that incivility isn't tolerated but I guess I was wrong. In the meantime, feel free to close this request early because I'm changing to decline and you aren't getting the three accepts (from User:Faceless Enemy, User:Therubicon, and User:Herr Gruber) you'll need to press forth with a process that apparently can't even get underway without permitting potential participants to violate policy. RunnyAmiga (talk) 15:13, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks,, for that cogent analysis of the problem. Felsic2 (talk) 16:26, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

And since I'm not done annoying people, I'll add one more thing. Tons of times, you used a rhetorical shortcut in replies to these people that was you starting replies with a variation on "I don't see where any of what you're saying is compliant with policy. That said..." You can't possibly be so clueless as to not know what kind of damage you were doing to content discussions. Replying like that is telling Thomas.W (or whoever) that not only is what they're saying not rooted in policy, it's not even valid enough to get a substantial response. To my reading, the second point in the WP:CIVIL "nutshell" box plainly, specifically forbids you from using "that's not rooted in policy" to decline to respond to efforts by the majority to discuss the actual content. Whether or not it's misguided, you aren't allowed to do that. It's a lowkey violation of WP:IDHT. And IDHT isn't a guideline, and it doesn't get enacted only when other users are in accordance with policy.

They very rarely interacted with you without violating the first rule of CIVIL. That sucks. But if, hypothetically, you were right, why not forget that their content approaches aren't in compliance and react to the actual substance? You did a hell of a job ignoring the insults. Why not also ignore the fact that you're backed up by policy and they're not? Especially since, per WP:IAR and consensus, their efforts at shaping content were actually on solid policy ground this whole time?

tldr: To my reading, CIVIL, IDHT, and WP:CONSENSUS specifically forbid you from refusing to interact with others' contributions to a content discussion. If you're disregarding the points being made by editors who hold consensus because these points don't comply with policy, you're violating policy. RunnyAmiga (talk) 19:30, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that feedback. You bring up some issues I hadn't thought of in that way. I need to digest it before I can respond. Felsic2 (talk) 19:35, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm posting this as a memo, or a chance to think "out loud". Here's what an editor who rejected this mediation said to another editor, in a different context:
 * No it doesn't, it's your persistent addition of unsourced and/or insufficiently sourced content that contravenes Wikipedia policy. WP:Verifiablity is a Wikipedia policy, and WP:Reliable sources is a content guideline, with status very close to being policy, whereas Revert only when necessary is an essay, i.e. the personal opinion of one or more editors, and just a suggestion. 
 * I guess I don't understand the hierarchy of consensus versus policy. If five editors say, "exclude it because I don't like it", then does that trump policy or not? There's a rule that consensus cannot override policy - WP:CONLEVEL - only interpret it. And WP:IAR, well, it's in a universe of its own. It's one thing if one says, "there's no policy, but for the good of the encyclopedia I'm doing this anyway". It's another thing to misinterpret policies in one's own favor. Still confused. Felsic2 (talk) 20:00, 5 August 2016 (UTC)


 * reply|RunnyAmiga}} I just found this, which may be making a similar point to yor own: Arguments to avoid on discussion pages.
 * More broadly, I think my error may be in dismissing arguments by saying they are based on essays-mislabeled-as-policies, or similar responses. I suppose a better way of responding would be to repeat back what I think the other person is saying, then addressing that issue. That could include pointing out that the referenced page is an essay, but it should also talk about why that reference is incorrect or inapplicable. That would avoid people feeling like I didn't "hear" their objection and would be more respectful of their opinion and objections. Am I getting it? Felsic2 (talk) 21:38, 6 August 2016 (UTC)