Wikipedia talk:Mediation Committee/Archive/5

Hello. It's been a while since I last posted on this page. Since that time, a lot of things have changed.

The original Mediation Cabal really is no more, with all of the previous members having moved on to other tasks. (One member is currently on the wikimedia board these days. :-) ). The current incarnation of the mediation cabal has a small core group of relatively experienced coordinators, and next to that has a large number of less experienced members. Sometimes experienced advisors and/or observers drop by to keep an eye on things.

;I'd like to ask some questions as to whether the mediation cabal is meeting 3 key objectives :

1. Training new Mediators
2. Offloading work
3. Act as an emergency backup.

• Board member? Who's that? (Anthere, Oscar, Erik, Mindspillage, Jan...?) Now I'm curious... Flcelloguy (A note?) 01:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

::: No comment. O:-) --Kim Bruning 00:18, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

One of the key design roles of the current incarnation of the mediation cabal is to train new mediators. I've heard of several cases where people with some amount of mediation cabal experience applied for mediation committee, but were refused.

• Have there been any successful applications from mediation cabal people at all?

• I believe there have been several, although I could be wrong and probably can't remember who off the top of my head. You may wish to check the list of nominations for more information on that. Flcelloguy (A note?) 01:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

• What problems were encountered with those mediation cabal members who failed?

• I think most candidates that were rejected didn't show the proper aptitude for mediation or didn't have community trust yet. Flcelloguy (A note?) 01:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

• How can these problems be addressed with these candidates, or with new candidates in future?
• Are problems with candidates discussed with the mediation cabal coordinators, so that they can advise candidates better in future?

Another key design role of the mediation cabal is to offload work from the mediation committee and other stations on the dispute resolution chain, by handling smaller cases and preventing them from growing any larger. If a mediation cabal member finds they cannot handle a case, (s)he is supposed to hand it off to a different station on the dispute resolution chain.

• When cases are handed off to you, does this happen on time?

• In general, things usually sit on our request page for a while, unfortunately. I can't recall a specific case "handed off" to us, although I do think there were a few. Flcelloguy (A note?) 01:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

• In what state are cases handed off to you? (Is it easy to pick up the case, and has the mediation cabal member helped you by setting things up so you can proceed easily, or are things generally a mess?)
• If there are any problems with cases, how could a less experienced mediation cabal member ensure that such problems do not occur in their case in future?
• Are problems with cases reported to the mediation cabal coordinators, so that they are aware of problems, and can advise members how to improve their behaviour in future?

The most important traditional role of the mediation cabal is to be able to work as an emergency replacement for other elements of dispute resolution, should they fail. It is not nescesary for the mediation cabal to act as a perfect drop in replacement. It is merely nescesary that they can fill in the gap temporarily without making things worse at the least, and hopefully at least give people who are in disputes some amount of hope that their case will be dealt with at all.

• The Mediation Cabal has fallen in for the Mediation Committee before, In your opinion, is the current incarnation of the Mediation Cabal still capable of doing so?

• Anything that helps relieve the stress on dispute resolution is helpful, in my opinion. Anything that helps solves disputes is a good thing. Flcelloguy (A note?) 01:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

• If so, why not? Could you name which deficiencies exist?
• If there are deficiencies, how could these deficiencies be addressed in future?
• If there are percieved deficiencies, are these deficiences reported to the Mediation Cabal coordinators, so that they can adjust the Mediation Cabal's behaviour in future?

I'll be using the answers to these questions to try to improve the performance of the Mediation Cabal, should that prove to be nescesary. Thanks very much to anyone who can help! :-)

--Kim Bruning 22:11, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

• I've done my best to give some of my thoughts and replies. For convenience, I've added them in the middle of your post, under their respective questions. Also note that I'm now a former member, for what it's worth (officially emeritus), so you may wish to take what I say with a grain of salt. (And I also apologize for what you may perceive as stunningly uninformative answers, looking back on them... I've done my best, though, after a cursory glance. :-) ) Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 01:33, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

:: Thank you very much! I'd love to hear more from yourself or from other people. I'm especially interested in how things can be improved. :-) --Kim Bruning 00:18, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I've recently noticed that a lot of your templates end with "For the mediation committee, (user delivering message)". Just a suggestion that you make it "On behalf of the mediation committee," - this way it is more straightforward. -- Lima Golf ^{Talk | Contributions} 11:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I've written a proposal that's gaining support and I'd like to make sure I don't step on anybody's toes or cause inadvertent confusion. The draft version is here. It would be a new type of mediation that would allow participants to impose arbitration-like remedies on themselves.

The aim is to complement the good work you already do, not to compete with it. I'm particularly concerned to make sure participants don't confuse a new experimental format with what you do. Comments and suggestions are welcome. Regards, Durova^Charge! 22:45, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello! I'm seeing very little activitiy on this page. Is there a more active location to request mediation committee feedback, or has the mediation committee gone inactive again? --Kim Bruning 12:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Please take a few moments and fill in the data for your bot on Wikipedia:Bots/Status

Thank you Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 19:41, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I just wanted to say thank you for helping out Wikipedia so much by volunteering your time. 128.172.143.112 04:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Good afternoon (GMT time); I am posting - for the record - a notice to all Mediation Committee members that I have closed the above Mediation Case as successful.

As a non-Committee member, I thought I ought to inform the committee that I have closed the case after mediating it. All parties are agreeable and are of the opinion that the Mediation has been successful.

I hope my mediation has been of a satisfactory standard to the Committee, and it has been a pleasure assisting the committee in this matter. Please do not hesitate to call upon me again if need be - I have enjoyed and relished the opportunity for more advanced mediation, and would jump at the chance to serve once again.

Please do not hesitate to contact me - via email or my talk page - if there are any further questions or comments.

Kind regards,
Anthonycfc ^{[T • C]} 17:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Respectfully, I have to ask for a resolution of something which I am calling minor. I had uploaded and used two images for the Bermuda Triangle article [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bermuda_Triangle&diff=110405778&oldid=110405506] some months ago. An editor removed these images, citing a policy concerning what he claimed was not fair use IAW WPFU Counterexamples. However, I countered that use of these images was authorized IAW line 7 of the Counterexamples policy in that I could use magazine illustrations for the topic at hand. The first image, that of the February 1964 issue of Argosy Magazine, was used to illustrate exactly where the popular stories of the Bermuda Triangle originated, and the second image, that of the front page to an April, 1925 issue of the New York Times, was there as an example of refuting what was written in the popular books on the subject. The New York Times page was also included on the article Raifuku Maru.

I know this is extremely minor and petty, but it underscores several larger issues about Wikipedia content, which was laid down in the February 18, 2007 front page of the Nashville Tennessean newspaper. Wikipedia is under fire from academia, from professional historians, from scientists, from educators over content, specifically that content which is included by just about anyone who simply has no business what they're talking about. Professors at the university where I am a student (MTSU) have warned us all never to use content from Wikipedia for that reason; it is unreliable as a serious educational tool. But myself, as well as many others, are trying to work hard to overturn that discrepancy. Even as something as minor as the Bermuda Triangle deserves attention, which is why I have left this here because I simply don't like it when an article that I have worked on to try to make it as factual as possible has to be altered because someone else didn't like the pictures. So, if you please, tell if the two images involved are legal or not. Carajou 21:22, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I would like to know what chance i would have of being selected if i nominate myself. Currently i am mediating a dispute on LaRoucheGeo. Talk to me 02:39, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

:There is no definitive guide as to whether or not someone will be selected to join the Committee. Personally, as the Committee chair, I have taken a policy to not comment on specific nominations. The best advice I can give (if you truly wish to join) would be to nominate yourself for a second time and see how the Committee reacts.

:::For the mediation Committee, ^demon^{[omg plz]} 15:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I found User talk:===Articles involved===, which was quite funny. If any of the bot operators wish to look at this before I delete it tomorrow, be my guest.

Cheers, Daniel Bryant 21:32, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

:Urgghh - that looks very strange. Tangotango has told me that Essjay made some modifications to the code, which may have caused (and fixed) that particular bug. So, for now, I'm using the original code which may cause more problems - we'll see when some cases run through it. Martinp23 21:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I may jump in on cases you all reject. I wanted to offer a courtesy discussion before I started doing this. jbolden1517^Talk 22:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

:In most cases, it isn't any of the MedCom who reject Mediation - it's just the fact that one or more of the parties has refused to agree to mediation. Generally, mediation won't work in cases where we don't have the acceptance of all the parties, and in most cases will never work. That said, feel free to trawl through our rejected case archives and offer to mediate informally on the article talk page or a sub-page of the article talk page. (This is only my opinon - I'd wait for those of the other committee members if I were you!). Martinp23 22:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

::Of course the MedCom always encourages informal mediation. Martinp23 is right though, you probably won't find willing participants, if they disagreed previously to mediation. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 23:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)