Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:12, 10 June 2012

	Dispute Resolution (inactive)
This 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

The Mediation Cabal
Main page	Current cases	Suggestions
Central discussion

• WT:MEDCAB

		Archives	2005 Jan - Dec 2006 Jan - May | May - Jul | Aug - Dec 2007 Jan - Feb | Mar - Apr | May - Aug | Sep - Dec 2008 Jan - Mar | Apr - Jun | Jul - Sep| Oct - Dec 2009 Jan - Mar | Apr-Jun | Jul-Dec 2010 Jan - Apr | May - Aug | Sep-Dec 2011 Jan - Dec 2012 Jan - Dec

Archives

Archive 1

Template:Misplaced Pages ad exists

New Issue: Fluoride

Tried you guys on IRC but nobody's there. This is a request for mediation on Fluoride and Hexafluorosilicic_acid topics with various editors. I got edit-warred on both topics, so stopped editing and switched to commenting on Talk:Fluoride, after which I was edit-blocked for an unknown reason. After my edit privileges were restored, I resumed discussion there, only to get more illogical arguments and fallacies in reply (e.g. saying that I'm a single-issue editor, conspiracy theorist, etc). Most recently, my comments on Talk page were deleted. I find this to be unacceptable. Censored discussion is not discussion at all. 69.105.232.74 (talk) 19:33, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I think a good first step here is for everyone involved to cool their heads. Then, maybe open a RfC (Request for Comment) for larger community input on the dispute, or alternatively, request a third opinion. If whatever issue still remains, then consider filing a MedCab case. The instructions and pre-made form can be found on our main page at WP:MEDCAB. Hope everything can be resolved. Cheers, Lord Roem (talk) 20:41, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Lord Roem that some other form of dispute resolution must be used first. If the time does come to make a mediation request, please use the form provided on the main page of this project. Cases will not ordinarily be opened from requests made on this page. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 03:52, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

My two cents

Hello mediators! I just want to bring to everyone's attention the String theory mediation. It appears that the mediator concluded the case in a final "decision". He says that the parties accepted it(see here), but I am generally concerned with such a manner of handling a case. It may be expedient do to so (issue a ruling), but we need to aim to allow all parties to resolve it on their own, with our help and guidance but not binding determinations. A pure content-dispute handled in such a way only stands on parties' acceptance of a decision, not on their mutual compromising and common agreement. Thus, the foundation of civility is not deep.

Let's make sure for future cases, we follow a different path. Just my two cents, Lord Roem (talk) 20:46, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, we did notice this case but decided that it would cause more hassle to intervene. It's something we definitely considered though, and I think that keeping a closer eye on cases may be the way to prevent this from happening in future. While MedCab is informal and mediators are generally free to choose their own methods of mediating, it must still fit within the general purpose of mediation, something I don't think this case did. That said, removing a mediator from a case is an extreme measure and we didn't feel it appropriate in this situation. Steven Zhang 21:15, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I've been sorely tempted to step in and tweak somebody else's comments - but openly disagreeing with a mediator would rather undermine the process. Now, though, the case has been declared "closed"; that might not be black-and-white, but if the parties to the mediation go along with the outcome then there's nothing to be gained by provoking more drama... bobrayner (talk) 01:47, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I really don't know what to call the mediator's claim that "the other parties accepted the rulings I made" other than a lie. I did not accept it - quite the opposite (and I said so), since the "decision" contradicted itself, didn't even mention the main issue, and isn't supposed to be the outcome of a mediation cabal process anyway. 8digits, the person that requested the mediation in the first place, hasn't posted on the mediation page in :weeks. The only participant that could plausibly be said to have accepted it is Wpegden.

Apart from that, I feel that the mediation was unsatisfactory in just about every aspect. The mediator repeatedly contradicted himself, demonstrated little understanding of the issue, and failed to take even the most basic care in writing responses. I'll just illustrate that last point with a quote. After accusing me of various things I didn't do, he said:

"Sorry, I think I am going slightly mad....I have been blaming the wrong person...I have reviewed the discussions above, and I can find no evidence to substantiate my claims. I will not withdraw my Mediator's Commission, because we are too far into this case for a new mediator to pick it up and understand it quickly, but I will issue a public apology which will remain on this page."

Given all this, I don't see that there's anything you can do that could create more hassle or further undermine the process - it's already thoroughly discredited. Waleswatcher (talk) 13:54, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I was aware of this too, as Steven says, and I'm sorry that the process hasn't worked as you expected. Issuing rulings is not something that we usually do at MedCab, and I can see that there is a lot of work still to do to resolve the dispute to the satisfaction of everyone involved. I have some ideas about how us MedCab coordinators can handle this sort of situation better next time, but for now the important thing is to decide how to proceed in getting your dispute resolved. I think that in this situation it would be appropriate to pass this dispute on to the Mediation Committee, where it would be handled by an experienced mediator. This depends, of course, on whether all the parties are willing to go ahead with it, and whether the Mediation Committee would accept it. In this case, though, I think the chances of it being accepted are good. What does everyone think of this suggestion? — Mr. Stradivarius 17:15, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I think that would be a positive move. bobrayner (talk) 17:30, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I do think a real mediation might have produced a consensus, and from there an improved article. On the other hand this has already been a pretty huge waste of time, and I'm reluctant to commit even more to it considering the record so far. So I guess I'll participate if it goes ahead, but I'm not going to push for it. Waleswatcher (talk) 17:36, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

It's up to you what to do, of course. However, I think it would be worth bearing in mind that the Mediation Committee are a completely different organization than MedCab, so you shouldn't assume that things you have encountered here will be repeated there. For more background, I recommend reading Misplaced Pages:Mediation and the Mediation Committee's policy page. Best — Mr. Stradivarius 19:11, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Let me make it coordinator-unanimous. Taking it to MedCom would be a good next step. A lot of different things went wrong in this case (and I'm not pointing fingers, just noting the fact) and, although all of us here at WP are volunteers at the end of the day, the mediators at MedCom are there through a filtering system somewhat similar to a request for adminship , whereas becoming a mediator here at MedCab is no more than saying, "I'll do it!"). One advantage of coming to MedCab is that you're much more likely to get your case heard; one disadvantage is that the process is largely up to the individual mediator. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:42, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

• For what its worth, I posted this notice to Thehistorian10 advising them that they should not mediate at MedCab anymore, though they have reverted it and gone on a downward spiral. I agree with the other coordinators in regards to referral to the Mediation Committee. There aren't that many active mediators at present here, and we are stretched rather thin at present. I think MedCom has a lighter case load than even us, so give that a go. Apologies again for how this case turned out. Steven Zhang 19:54, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I just thought I should chime in since I'm the other person that was actually involved in the mediation. As Waleswatcher noted, a third user (8digits) requested the mediation but did not actively participate. (That's not a great way to have started that process, I have to say, as I don't think everyone even completely agreed on what the disagreement was.)

In light of what a mess it was, and seeing now that it was run in a way that was completely out of line with the guidelines for mediations, I'm completely willing to go through some other mediation process if you guys (and Waleswatcher) think that would be best. At this point, the paragraph that was in dispute has since been edited to reflect understanding between Waleswatcher and I on a separate issue without edit warring, so maybe a Mediation less crucial now. Wpegden (talk) 00:44, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm pretty happy with the way the article is now, and I think Wpegden and I managed to work together constructively on it - but only once this "mediation" was out of the way. While I still believe the phrase that started all this is both true and acceptable by wiki's guidelines, it's also not really needed in the article as it is now. For these reasons and the ones I mentioned above, I don't think additional mediation is necessary at this time. Waleswatcher (talk) 18:44, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

That's good - if you feel that you can work together on this, then I agree that mediation is probably not necessary. If the discussion on the talk page gets stuck again you can always start a thread at the dispute resolution noticeboard, and we can take things from there. Best — Mr. Stradivarius 00:31, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Fix going forward

I've boldly made two changes in the mediator suggestions here (the most important part of which is actually the last sentence) and in the case listing template here to try to help to avoid this issue in the future. What do you think? Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:11, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Works for me. Steven Zhang 21:33, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Second. Lord Roem (talk) 00:25, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Good idea. ItsZippy 20:28, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I've just tightened the wording a little, hope you don't mind. Feel free to make further improvements. ItsZippy 20:33, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Inactive status boxes

Any way the MedCab bot can be changed so it recognizes edits on a page's talk page as ongoing? The discussion on my case is moving forward on the case talk page, but the medcab bot sees no changes to the main page and thus marks it as inactive. If this can be tweaked, that would be great! Thanks! Lord Roem (talk) 19:07, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Mediation policy, new section

Please see the Control of mediation section which I have boldly added to the Mediation policy. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:13, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Guidance, please

I was wondering if I could have a bit of guidance and input from fellow mediators. I am currently mediating this case on the Falklands War; specifically, how the British leadership of the war should be expressed the infobox. The dispute was previously discussed at Talk:Falklands War#Margaret Thatcher, then briefly at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Military history#Falklands and request for input on the use of the infobox. I did not start the mediation great, but it became clear to me that the prevailing consensus, both before the case and then during the case, is that Margaret Thatcher alone should be presented as the British leader in the infobox. Wee Curry Monster has challenged my perception of this consensus, raising the issue here. I have told him that I will ask other mediators what they think the current consensus is, and I will go with whatever advice I am given. So, how would you interpret the current consensus? Thank you. ItsZippy 17:14, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure why declaring a 'consensus' on one side is needed for the mediation. I see mediation as an opportunity for all sides to come together (i.e. have to give a little) and find some common ground. Deciding at the onset that one side has 'consensus' is probably not the best way to go. However, if it is really just one user being disruptive (which I'm saying in a vacuum, not this specific case) then that is a pure conduct issue which we can't get involved in.

My advice is to work forward with the case to find common ground, rather than determining which side has 'consensus'. A mediator needs to both be and be perceived as impartial to everyone's interests. Best regards and best of luck, Lord Roem (talk) 18:12, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree, M'Lord. (Sorry, it's a holdover from my old SCA days. ) Indeed, I believe that the first thing we must do when considering a dispute (with no criticism intended towards ItsZippy), whether here or at one of the other DR forums, is to determine whether or not it's being brought to us as forum shopping. If consensus is already clearly established in the discussion then there is no dispute to mediate and a request brought by the minority party is nothing more than a form of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT disruption. As you say, it is a conduct issue, but to proceed with DR in such a case is to aid and abet the disrupter and is not in the best interest of the encyclopedia. (And I haven't looked to see if I think there was consensus in this particular case, either.) Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:43, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

TransporterMan, I think our positions aren't mutually exclusive. I agree, we should be sure the mediation filing is not an attempt at forum shopping. However, I think we need to ensure that the mediator does their best to be neutral and guide the parties involved to a resolution everyone can live with. I don't know the particulars of this specific case, but I do think it is prudent to advise ItsZippy to do his best to not seem biased on the matter. Thus, if there really is no consensus and all parties are in a deep, entrenched dispute, a mediator should do his best to find reasonable ground, not say one side is already sort of "leading" the argument. I think that's a fair way to put it. :) Lord Roem (talk) 19:52, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Addendum: I do want to commend ItsZippy who seems to have handled the matter well. I would defer to the discretion of his decision if he feels there is an attempt at forum shopping here. If he so feels, he should make that clear. If not, then he should do his best to work from a neutral ground. Lord Roem (talk) 19:54, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I concur and one key to the mutuality of our positions was my use of "clearly established." We shouldn't assert, and most certainly shouldn't push, that an uncertain or weak consensus or a simple majority is a definitive consensus. In that situation we should move forward with DR. Another situation, which I was about to supplement when you responded, is the situation in which the question explicitly brought to us is whether consensus has or has not been established. (By the very fact that the question is being asked, the answer will ordinarily be "no," of course, unless one or more of the parties are very inexperienced and do not know how to evaluate consensus, unless IDIDNTHEARTHAT is involved, or unless all of the parties are so nice that no one is willing to claim the !win .) Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:15, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the responses. I think the issue stemmed from a personal oversight of mine at the beginning: I failed to full read the prior discussion. Had I adequately done this before, I probably would not have opened the mediation case. Presently, the dispute seems to consist of two issues: firstly, the specific issue of the content itself, which I believe has a consensus); and secondly, the merits of a wider discussion about the issue in general, which has been raised but has had little discussion. As it is, a number of the parties involved now seem to have either given up with the mediation or become disinterested, yet the issue remains unresolved. This is the first case I have mediated properly (aside from the last one, which closed when one of the parties turned out to be a sockpuppet), so I am wondering what the best course of action to take would be now. Thanks. ItsZippy 16:36, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Ground rules and structure

Hey all. Noticed quite a few cases have started off with laying down ground rules and asking for opening comments. Such action is occasionally necessary, whether it's due to heated conflict between parties, edit warring, or a complex, perhaps contentious topic under mediation. But this isn't necessary in every case. It requires an analysis of the situation, and a decision on the part of the mediator to decide what style is required, whether it's a strict structure which the mediator controls, or a more free style of discussion where they act as an observer and a guide. There's no sonic screwdriver in a mediators toolkit, no "one size fits all". We need to adat to the situation and go from there. If in doubt, ask for advice. :-) Steven Zhang 20:59, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

As you're advertising advice, I was wondering if you got this message? ItsZippy 21:14, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Just as a note, the case I opened (with the ground rules format) is probably necessitated with the way these editors are editing...they need some structure. :) Lord Roem (talk) 21:37, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

It's always good to have it structured ;) Whenaxis talk · contribs | DR goes to Wikimania! 23:32, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Yep, I got that notice :-) I'm pretty sure I replied to it. Structure can help at times, but at times it can constrict the discussion. Just don't use it for everything :-) Steven Zhang 06:03, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree that too much structure can be stifling. Knowing when to use it and when not to is an art, I think. (And one that I'm still getting used to.) I think that ground rules are pretty much always a good idea for any reasonably big case though - and at the moment, the smaller cases are generally being handled at WP:DRN. I do agree that it's a good idea to customize the ground rules depending on the particular situation. In mediation, one size does not fit all. — Mr. Stradivarius 06:15, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

John Searle

I've open a case here http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/07_March_2012/ . 23:49, 12 March 2012 (UTC) Have I done something wrong? Thanks --Hibrido Mutante (talk) 20:57, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the title was incorrectly formatted, so our bot didn't report it to the cases page. I've moved it to Misplaced Pages:Mediation Cabal/Cases/07 March 2012/John Searle, which should do the trick. Best — Mr. Stradivarius 23:38, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Closing MedCab

I know that some of us have discussed this for some time, but I think that after the verifiability mediation closes, it might be time to close MedCab. While "it's not used very much" isn't really a sufficient enough reason alone, but the fact that it also duplicates many functions of both DRN and MedCom makes it somewhat redundant. It may be confusing at first, but a notice can be easily put up to direct small disputes to DRN, and larger ones to MedCom. I'll begin the closing after the verifiability mediation is complete, but I welcome feedback and ideas on how to make the transition a smooth one. Regards, Steven Zhang 02:14, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Is this really necessary? Are you saying that DRN and MedCab are informal so they overlap? High assumptions wouldn't you say?Curb Chain (talk) 03:24, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

MedCab at present has elements of both DRN, in its structure and the fact that it is informal, but also has elements of formal mediation. This has been discussed for a few months, but one of the main things I've learned from the dispute resolution survey is that the community feels that dispute resolution is too complex, and that there are too many dispute resolution forums. I do think this is a necessary step, and is the reason I've posted a note here. Steven Zhang 04:00, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Why haven't these results been released and why are you acting upon these results when they have not yet been made public.Curb Chain (talk) 04:12, 10 June 2012 (UTC)