| Revision as of 01:35, 4 September 2010 editPhilKnight (talk | contribs)Checkusers, Oversighters, Administrators125,910 edits →doc change, somewhere: comment← Previous edit | Revision as of 21:16, 6 September 2010 edit undoPhilKnight (talk | contribs)Checkusers, Oversighters, Administrators125,910 editsm archiveNext edit → | ||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
| {{Misplaced Pages ad exists|211|collapsed=no}} | {{Misplaced Pages ad exists|211|collapsed=no}} | ||
| == New blood on the Mediation Committee == | |||
| 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 ]. | |||
| ] 20:23, 4 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == Evaluate consensus? == | |||
| Is the Cabal an appropriate place to ask for someone to evaluate consensus on a discussion?--] (]) 22:23, 14 May 2010 (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) | |||
| == IRC Channel == | |||
| Please see ] thread. ] ] 03:02, 30 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == TINMC == | |||
| I see that the page ] redirects here. What exactly does "TINMC" stand for? ]<sup>]</sup> 18:04, 22 June 2010 (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) | |||
| == Anonymous commenters == | |||
| 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) | |||
| :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) | |||
| == Referal of "Israel and the apartheid analogy" case to formal mediation. == | |||
| 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) | |||
| :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) | |||
| :::::Ok, I've made myself known over there. we'll see what response it gets. --] 22:17, 28 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == Back Again == | |||
| 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 | |||
| --] (]) 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 == | == doc change, somewhere == | ||
Revision as of 21:16, 6 September 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)