Misplaced Pages

talk:Mediation Cabal: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 00:02, 4 September 2010 editLudwigs2 (talk | contribs)Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers19,240 editsm doc change, somewhere: f← Previous edit Latest revision as of 14:49, 9 September 2024 edit undoCewbot (talk | contribs)Bots7,769,017 editsm Maintain {{WPBS}}: 1 WikiProject template. Create {{WPBS}}.Tag: Talk banner shell conversion 
(272 intermediate revisions by 63 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{WikiProject banner shell|
{{WikiProject Dispute Resolution}}
}}
<center>'''New sections at the bottom'''</center> <center>'''New sections at the bottom'''</center>
{{Misplaced Pages:Mediation Cabal/Pagelist}}{{shortcut|WT:MEDCAB}}{{/Archivebox}} {{Misplaced Pages:Mediation Cabal/Pagelist}}{{shortcut|WT:MEDCAB}}{{/Archivebox}}
<div style="margin-left:13px"> <div style="margin-left:13px">
{{search archives | small=yes}} {{archives|banner=yes|list=|small=yes|prefix=|root=}}
{{clear}} {{clear}}
{{Misplaced Pages ad exists|211|collapsed=no}}




== Proposal to close MedCab ==
== New blood on the Mediation Committee ==


See discussion at ]. Please post any comments there, not here, to keep the discussion co-located. --] (]) 00:09, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi cabalists. The ] is currently looking for new blood. If you're an experienced mediator and an editor with a strong knowledge of the project and its dispute resolution process, you're probably the kind of person we're looking for. Most committee members are administrators, but being a sysop is not a requirement. Instead, candidates should have a sizeable and positive involvement in the project's more complex disputes, and will preferably be able to point to several disputes that they have successfully mediated (either with the MedCab or on a completely informal basis). To file a nomination, do your reading on the committee, and then visit:
* ]
Queries are most welcome, and can be directed to myself or another ].


== There Is No Cabal (TINC) ==
] 20:23, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


For those who might suspect that there is a Cabal (TINC):
== Evaluate consensus? ==


'''There Is No Cabal.''' We talked about this at last week's Super Secret Cabal Meeting, and every cabal member there agreed that There Is No Cabal. There was a write-up about it in last month's issue of ''Cabalist: The Official Cabal Newsletter'' titled <ins>Cabal Board of Directors agrees: There Is No Cabal</ins>. The sign on Cabal Towers in downtown Manhattan says "There Is No Cabal". What more proof do you need?
Is the Cabal an appropriate place to ask for someone to evaluate consensus on a discussion?--] (]) 22:23, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


See and for more information. --] (]) 12:38, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
:Hi SaskatchewanSenator, not usually, I'd suggest either a relevant wikiproject, such as ], or the ]. Alternatively, if a consensus hasn't formed, you could organise a ]. ] (]) 17:08, 15 May 2010 (UTC)


:So what you're not saying is that there isn't definitely not a cabal that doesn't not ''not'' exist? ] ('']'') 07:53, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
== IRC Channel ==


::You know what I always say; follow the sources. '''''' is a reliable source that should clear everything up. And if it doesn't, then '''''' will. --] (]) 08:21, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Please see ] thread. ] ] 03:02, 30 May 2010 (UTC)


:::My God! This changes <s>everything</s> nothing! ] (]) 08:37, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
== TINMC ==


I see that the page ] redirects here. What exactly does "TINMC" stand for? ]<sup>]</sup> 18:04, 22 June 2010 (UTC) ::::No need to call me your God. "Guy" will do. :) --] (]) 00:14, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
:Its a play on ]. <span style="font-family:Courier New;font-size:3">]</span><sup>]</sup> 18:55, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
::Also, the ] article provides some explanation about the history of the TINC acronym. ] (]) 18:58, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
:::Ah, learning something new everyday. ]<sup>]</sup> 18:33, 23 June 2010 (UTC)


:::::Obviously this is either true or not. <b>]</b>\] 08:46, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
== Anonymous commenters ==


::::::Or both. Or Neither. It's a Zen Thing. --] (]) 17:12, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi. In the ] we have an anonymous IP commenting. Can I get some clarity on whether this is acceptable for a mediation case? My understanding is that we identify involved parties so that we can reach a person-to-person resolution on an issue, and the involvement of an anonymous IP seems to undermine that. I would be very happy for the IP to register as an involved party in the case under a user name, but they have refused to do so. Another involved party has commented that it's possible the IP is a banned editor. If that should be the case, their involvement is presumably a disruption we could do without. ] (]) 22:38, 23 June 2010 (UTC)


Not an update: Since ], the annual ] cocktail party and meet 'n greet did not successfully take place on June 1 (and Jimmy does not say "Hi!" to those who could not not attend, you didn't miss a great time). Please remember that the meetings for year 8746 will not take place as planned on the ] and ] at, respectively, ], ], ], and ] and that the Glastonbury meeting will not, as usual, require full ] and ] and that loaner robes <small>(Iggy, this means ''you'')</small> will not be available. The private jets will not pick you up at the regular places and times. Best regards and obeisances, ] (]) 18:10, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
:Hi Ryan, there isn't a fixed rule, however in this instance the IP has no other edits, which is unusual. I've asked the IP a question about this on their talk page. ] (]) 22:51, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
::] has been blocked as a sockpuppet of ]. <span style="font-family: Papyrus">] (])</span> 07:30, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


:As the nonexistent ] for people (all of whom are not part of any kind of ]) did not have an unexpectedly large number of attendees, I will not be assisting in the arrangement of the ] breakfast for benefit of only ]. I have not suggested any locations that no one else could think of such as the ] or somesuch. There is no way to ] to this event as it does not exist- to reiterate a common theme here- ]. -] (]) 04:20, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
== Referal of "Israel and the apartheid analogy" case to formal mediation. ==


== Complaint ==
The mediator for ] has asked on the ] that it be refered to formal mediation, because of potential legal issues relating to conflict between editors. I don't perceive any legal issues, or that much conflict between editors for that matter. I think it would be good to continue this case and see if it can make progress, before trying formal mediation. Would anyone be willing to take on the mediation, given that the present mediator doesn't seem keen? ] (]) 03:40, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
But on a serious note, is there really no one who can mediate when a user has been pre-emptively "straw-man"ed so many times to Admins that they keep closing without resolution his attempts to find mediation that no one is prepared to look at his side of the story? :( ] 19:13, 14 September 2012 (UTC)


:Kaz, this project is inactive so you are wasting your time even more here than in the half dozen other discussions you have opened about this. ] (]) 03:10, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
:I'd be happy to pick it up, but will only do so if there are no objections from MedCab people. It's a topic I know a bit about, and could probably work with effectively, but... Thumbs up/down is all that's required - no need to say more. --] 04:06, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
::It's fine. If there are objections from the parties, then best to err on the side of caution. ] (]) 11:06, 28 June 2010 (UTC) <small>''Please'' try to avoid there being 5 AN/I threads in a row, though :-p</small>
:::<small>LMFAO - I'll do my best. {{=)|angel}} --] 14:48, 28 June 2010 (UTC)</small>
::::Sounds fine to me. If you could run it past the other involved parties on the case page and the article's talk page that would be good, and all going well let's get on with it. ] (]) 19:52, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


::The interesting thing is that, in general, Misplaced Pages administrators are very much on the lookout for any admins who violate our policies. Nobody wants that. If Kaz had actual evidence, he could take it to ] and the problem would be dealt with. Otherwise, this is almost certainly another case of "Whenever someone cries out 'admin abuse!,' it is usually the admin who is being abused." So can we get back to our silly Cabal (TINC) jokes, please? --] (]) 09:26, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
:::::Ok, I've made myself known over there. we'll see what response it gets. --] 22:17, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


== Back Again == == There definitely is no cabal ==


I'd just like to point out that ] does not, and never will, exist &mdash; just so people know, of course. --] ] 21:05, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Loyal cabalists. After an extended absence I am here again to offer my services, if they were needed but since TINMC I guess they won't be. Seriously, some RL circulstances have changed to free up some time and I plan to try to help out where I can. If you go back to the beginning you may remember me. :P


:There Is No Cabal (TINC). We discussed this at the last cabal meeting, and everyone agreed that there is no cabal. An announcement was made in ''Cabalist: The Official Newsletter of The Cabal'' making it clear that there is no cabal. The words "There Is No Cabal" are in ten-foot letters on the side of the international cabal headquarters, and we show a disclaimer that there is no cabal at the start of every program on the Cabal Network. If that's not enough to convince people that there is no cabal, I don't know what will. --] (]) 02:37, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
--] (]) 05:51, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

:Hi Wgfinley, we've got a lengthy backlog, so any help is certainly appreciated. If you want co-mediate a case, then let me know. ] (]) 21:52, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

::Took care of the backlog, a lot of it was stale. --] (]) 01:03, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

:::Thanks! ] (]) 13:59, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

== ] ==

Can someone please mediate on the issue? It's become one user vs 7 users (I being one of them) debate (not discussion). While the lone user calls it "ganging up", it well may be an unfavourable consensus (]) reached by the 7 group (discussion first started on ]). We are going round in circles in the discussion and IMO without a neutral mediator, it is pointless to continue the discussion, which is already a 45KB page. Please help. Thanks --] <sup> ] </sup> 16:53, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

:The ] discussed about by Redtiger above, has also been littering my talkpage with meaningless warnings (, , , ) (my statements ] allegedly constitute "abuse"). I asked the user to stop trashing my talkpage and to address his issues with my behaviour in a civilized, reasoned, and logical fashion a number of times (, ). As for me, I have lost any ability to assume good faith with the user in question, due to his refusals to listen to logic, his wild conspiracy theories, and his ] (please note I am commenting on the users ''conduct'', I'm exasperated from all the nonsense directed at me in discussion). Sikh-History's edits meet ] of ]. Just to start off with he is attempting to ] perpetuated by the "]" ]!]<sup>]</sup> 22:29, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

::I think this can be resolved without recourse to mediation, and I offered to help Sikh-history do that in his talk. I'm still waiting for a response. Ultimately I think the material will need to be included in some fashion, it just needs to be a little less bald-faced than it currently is. --] 23:54, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

::: Sikh-History, Q Chris and I have reached a consensus. The discussion is more or less dead. I suppose the case file can be closed. --] <sup> ] </sup> 17:31, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

== ] ==

I just spotted this, which isn't listed under ]. Should it be? ] (]) 14:45, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
:The requestor wasn't following the directions: he deleted everything and wrote a summary. Tsk, tsk! Nah, it's OK. I'll fix it. ] (]) 06:05, 26 August 2010 (UTC) <small>''Good'' catch, btw! Thanks!</small>

== doc change, somewhere ==

You know, just because I've run into this misconception a few times now, I've been thinking about adding a banner somewhere in the boilerplate that says, effectively:
<blockquote>''Involvement in mediation is voluntary, and should be active. Mediation only works if participants have a sincere desire to resolve the issues at hand and are willing to commit themselves to the process of discussion. Do not begin the mediation process if there are some participants who are unwilling or unable to make that commitment; It will simply be a waste of everyone's time. In such cases it would be better to seek out formal mediation, arbitration, or some more authoritative solution to the dispute.''</blockquote>
sorry if that sounds a little psychotherapeutical. The intent is to plant the idea in people's heads early that they need to be active and committed to the process otherwise it won't work. Would that work, you think? --] 00:01, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 14:49, 9 September 2024

This project page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconDispute Resolution (inactive)
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Dispute Resolution, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Dispute ResolutionWikipedia:WikiProject Dispute ResolutionTemplate:WikiProject Dispute ResolutionDispute Resolution
New sections at the bottom

The Mediation Cabal
Main page Current cases Suggestions
Central discussion
Shortcut

Archives

Archiving icon

Archives: no archives yet (create)


Proposal to close MedCab

See discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Mediation_Committee#Close_MedCab. Please post any comments there, not here, to keep the discussion co-located. --Noleander (talk) 00:09, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

There Is No Cabal (TINC)

For those who might suspect that there is a Cabal (TINC):

There Is No Cabal. We talked about this at last week's Super Secret Cabal Meeting, and every cabal member there agreed that There Is No Cabal. There was a write-up about it in last month's issue of Cabalist: The Official Cabal Newsletter titled Cabal Board of Directors agrees: There Is No Cabal. The sign on Cabal Towers in downtown Manhattan says "There Is No Cabal". What more proof do you need?

See and for more information. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:38, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

So what you're not saying is that there isn't definitely not a cabal that doesn't not not exist? Xavexgoem (tinc) 07:53, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
You know what I always say; follow the sources. here is a reliable source that should clear everything up. And if it doesn't, then this one will. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:21, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
My God! This changes everything nothing! Xavexgoem (talk) 08:37, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
No need to call me your God. "Guy" will do. :) --Guy Macon (talk) 00:14, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Obviously this is either true or not. Inter\ 08:46, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Or both. Or Neither. It's a Zen Thing. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:12, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Not an update: Since there is no cabal, the annual Bilderberg cocktail party and meet 'n greet did not successfully take place on June 1 (and Jimmy does not say "Hi!" to those who could not not attend, you didn't miss a great time). Please remember that the meetings for year 8746 will not take place as planned on the solstices and equinoxes at, respectively, Ayers Rock, Glastonbury Tor, Easter Island, and Fajada Butte and that the Glastonbury meeting will not, as usual, require full robes and regalia and that loaner robes (Iggy, this means you) will not be available. The private jets will not pick you up at the regular places and times. Best regards and obeisances, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:10, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

As the nonexistent slumber party for people (all of whom are not part of any kind of tomfoolery) did not have an unexpectedly large number of attendees, I will not be assisting in the arrangement of the pancake breakfast for benefit of only no one, no one at all. I have not suggested any locations that no one else could think of such as the Red Pyramid or somesuch. There is no way to RSVP to this event as it does not exist- to reiterate a common theme here- there is totally no cabal of any kind. -Coriander (talk) 04:20, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Complaint

But on a serious note, is there really no one who can mediate when a user has been pre-emptively "straw-man"ed so many times to Admins that they keep closing without resolution his attempts to find mediation that no one is prepared to look at his side of the story? :( Kaz 19:13, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Kaz, this project is inactive so you are wasting your time even more here than in the half dozen other discussions you have opened about this. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:10, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
The interesting thing is that, in general, Misplaced Pages administrators are very much on the lookout for any admins who violate our policies. Nobody wants that. If Kaz had actual evidence, he could take it to WP:ANI and the problem would be dealt with. Otherwise, this is almost certainly another case of "Whenever someone cries out 'admin abuse!,' it is usually the admin who is being abused." So can we get back to our silly Cabal (TINC) jokes, please? --Guy Macon (talk) 09:26, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

There definitely is no cabal

I'd just like to point out that Misplaced Pages:Mediation Cabal 2.0 does not, and never will, exist — just so people know, of course. --Tristessa (talk) 21:05, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

There Is No Cabal (TINC). We discussed this at the last cabal meeting, and everyone agreed that there is no cabal. An announcement was made in Cabalist: The Official Newsletter of The Cabal making it clear that there is no cabal. The words "There Is No Cabal" are in ten-foot letters on the side of the international cabal headquarters, and we show a disclaimer that there is no cabal at the start of every program on the Cabal Network. If that's not enough to convince people that there is no cabal, I don't know what will. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:37, 30 January 2016 (UTC)