| Revision as of 18:55, 10 September 2010 editLudwigs2 (talk | contribs)Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers19,240 edits →doc change, somewhere: r← Previous edit | Revision as of 15:18, 5 October 2010 edit undoLambanog (talk | contribs)3,762 edits →Request suggestions on what should be done: new sectionNext edit → | ||
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
| ::well, it may be a function of the fact that the mediations I've done have all been high-tension affairs, but in both cases I ran into editors who had (for unknown reasons) come to the conclusion that medcab was an authoritative process, and settled down to disrupt the proceedings as best possible to prevent an authoritative ruling on that matter that would go against their interests. It's a funky misperception that causes headaches. We don't need to mention other venues, I just would (personally) like to make it explicit that (a) this is a cooperative system for structured discussion, not an authoritative system for reaching decisions, and (b) the process goes nowhere at all unless people are willing to commit themselves to the process. --] 18:55, 10 September 2010 (UTC) | ::well, it may be a function of the fact that the mediations I've done have all been high-tension affairs, but in both cases I ran into editors who had (for unknown reasons) come to the conclusion that medcab was an authoritative process, and settled down to disrupt the proceedings as best possible to prevent an authoritative ruling on that matter that would go against their interests. It's a funky misperception that causes headaches. We don't need to mention other venues, I just would (personally) like to make it explicit that (a) this is a cooperative system for structured discussion, not an authoritative system for reaching decisions, and (b) the process goes nowhere at all unless people are willing to commit themselves to the process. --] 18:55, 10 September 2010 (UTC) | ||
| == Request suggestions on what should be done == | |||
| Hello I am in the middle of a dispute with another editor. It is getting to the point that I think ] is becoming hard to apply. To avoid further deterioration I suggested mediation to which I thought I would get an automatic yes, but instead what I got in response was "Mediation is unsuitable for such disputes, as explained at WP:Mediation." Good faith or no I do not trust the other editor's interpretation of Misplaced Pages guidelines. Related discussions of issues involved have already taken place on the talk page of the said article, the talk page of another article where we had another disagreement, and two noticeboards. In each case, when third parties gave opinions, some in general some specific to my case, they all supported the rationale for my edits. From the discussion above it would seem both parties involved in a disagreement should acknowledge this process for it to be a success. Given the response I received what next should be done? From my point-of-view it would seem I either appease the other editor, edit war with the other editor, go ahead with a mediation process anyway, or report at ]. Are there any other options? Thank you. ] (]) 15:18, 5 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 15:18, 5 October 2010
 The Mediation Cabal | ||
| Main page | Current cases | Suggestions |
 Central discussion
| ||
|
 Archives |
|---|
 Archives | |
|
|
Template:Misplaced Pages ad exists
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:
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.
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? --Ludwigs2 00:01, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
- I think providing additional advice could be worthwhile. However, generally speaking, if the parties don't agree to formal mediation, then it doesn't proceed. Also, care should be taken in signposting disputes to ArbCom, as they don't rule on content, and require parties to have tried other steps in the dispute resolution process. PhilKnight (talk) 01:35, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
- well, it may be a function of the fact that the mediations I've done have all been high-tension affairs, but in both cases I ran into editors who had (for unknown reasons) come to the conclusion that medcab was an authoritative process, and settled down to disrupt the proceedings as best possible to prevent an authoritative ruling on that matter that would go against their interests. It's a funky misperception that causes headaches. We don't need to mention other venues, I just would (personally) like to make it explicit that (a) this is a cooperative system for structured discussion, not an authoritative system for reaching decisions, and (b) the process goes nowhere at all unless people are willing to commit themselves to the process. --Ludwigs2 18:55, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Request suggestions on what should be done
Hello I am in the middle of a dispute with another editor. It is getting to the point that I think WP:AGF is becoming hard to apply. To avoid further deterioration I suggested mediation to which I thought I would get an automatic yes, but instead what I got in response was "Mediation is unsuitable for such disputes, as explained at WP:Mediation." Good faith or no I do not trust the other editor's interpretation of Misplaced Pages guidelines. Related discussions of issues involved have already taken place on the talk page of the said article, the talk page of another article where we had another disagreement, and two noticeboards. In each case, when third parties gave opinions, some in general some specific to my case, they all supported the rationale for my edits. From the discussion above it would seem both parties involved in a disagreement should acknowledge this process for it to be a success. Given the response I received what next should be done? From my point-of-view it would seem I either appease the other editor, edit war with the other editor, go ahead with a mediation process anyway, or report at WP:ANI. Are there any other options? Thank you. Lambanog (talk) 15:18, 5 October 2010 (UTC)