Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Steven Crossin (talk | contribs) at 06:41, 26 September 2011 (→Section break: reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

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)

Sometimes, it's best to walk away. Hard truth: they can't all be solved. Xavexgoem (talk) 04:53, 22 October 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)

Hi Lambanog, I've added List of Philippine restaurant chains to my watchlist and I'll help out if necessary. PhilKnight (talk) 13:23, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Close case

How do you close a case? The dispute over Authorship of the Bible seems to have been resolved.RomanHistorian (talk) 15:39, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

On the request page you change the status from Open to Closed. Mr R00t 23:33, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Missing mediator

What should be done when one's esteemed mediator goes offwiki for 2.5 weeks? The case is longevity myths, I already left a talk message that the mediator responded to but didn't follow up on, and there is much unresolved that I would like to consider in-process rather than out-of-. JJB 21:48, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi JJB, I'll help out until Atama returns. PhilKnight (talk) 10:44, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Revamping case naming conventions

Hello, Cabalists and Cabalettets! If you've seen the "test" cases on the frontpage, let me explain what's going on. I'm trying to figure out a way to do away with the inclusion of dates in case names. Its ugly, it was a kludge to solve a bot issue years ago, and I can never remember the exact date a case was opened to find it again without looking at the list of cases (God help me if I want to find it again after its been closed!). In short, I'd like to make everyone's lives a little easier by removing a bit of unnecessary stuff.

The problem that I see is with having the bot list cases in the appropriate order. As you can see from the case listings, the bot lists them in alphabetical order from 1-9 and then A-Z. That's how including the date makes it list in date order. What I would like to do is figure out how to get it to list in the appropriate order without modifying the bot. Does anyone have an idea on how to do that? The Wordsmith 05:36, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

The date information has to be in the title for the bot to work? Netalarm 05:41, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

The way the bot is currently programmed, yes. The way it works appears to be as follows:

1. 1. Bot runs this task every half hour, on *:06 and *:36.
   2. It checks the New Medcab Cases category and sees if there are any cases listed there that aren't on the case listing page.
   3. If it finds one or more, the bot adds them to the list and then sorts by alphabetical order, 0-9, A-Z, a-z.
   4. The bot saves the page and then goes back to sleep for half an hour.

Hopefully this clears things up. The Wordsmith 05:51, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think you can without modifying the bot. The pages are created "####-##-##/case name", and are saved by the bot that same way. There's no way to specify, in WP, that you don't want rendered the date and the forward slash. The bot needs to strip those out before saving, and when it re-orders the list needs to compare the case name (e.g., "e.g.") to the case name in the category (e.g., "2010-10-24/e.g.") to get the date (or somehow embed the date invisibly) . Xavexgoem (talk) 06:12, 24 October 2010 (UTC) And O. M. G. something needs to be done about the old cases Xavexgoem (talk) 06:18, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

We could easily make the case page creation button not include the date by default. I don't think we would really need to move the old pages, but if we did AWB could easily handle it. As far as listing them in the correct order, a bot could theoretically look at the "Date opened" field on the case page and use that. Misza is less than active currently, so I'll talk to Betacommand about possibly using his bot (it already handles SPI, so it should be an easy adaptation). The Wordsmith 06:24, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

But then every page would need to be accessed to get the dates. Huge bother if you set a case to new again. Xavexgoem (talk) 06:32, 24 October 2010 (UTC) Not to mention the poops who clear the page and write in their own stuff. Don't want to write for many corner-cases

Yes, have something like Misplaced Pages:Mediation Cabal/Cases/14 September 2011/Jeff Frederick be a redirect to Misplaced Pages:Mediation Cabal/Case/Jeff Frederick. Rich Farmbrough, 21:19, 17 September 2011 (UTC).

Parties need educating

Should we be discouraging parties from saying "such-and-such-element-in-contention has consensus"? You'll read this a lot in opening statements. You read that and it's hard not to think you'll be communicating with a brick wall. It angers the opposition party, as well. We really should be reminding parties that the reason they're here is because these elements don't have consensus.

I at least recommend that mediators first get these parties to agree that there isn't consensus, as a sort of "opening play". This clears the air somewhat between parties, since at least that side stops appearing so obstinant. You'll have to make a few nimble decisions if they don't initially agree, since you don't want to create the appearance that you're against them.

If you don't clear this air first, you'll get a huge mess of miscommunication, and inevitably the conflict will become more behavioral. I'm really starting to believe that there's a behavioral threshold that, once passed, makes a dispute nearly impossible to solve with mediation. (Some mediators are better at taking advantage of parties' behavioral issues, though, but this is inherently risky). Xavexgoem (talk) 19:58, 12 November 2010 (UTC) While I'm on a roll, I'd argue there are broadly three kinds of disputes, all with overlap: (1) behavioral, (2) content (how neutral, how reliable, how fringe), (3) rules (naive interpretations of policies and guidelines). I'll bet that (3) is the biggest. This has interesting overlap with the policy trifecta (DICK, NPOV, IAR, respectively, for certain values of IAR)

Bot updates

Should the bot have added Misplaced Pages:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-11-21/Kendrick mass to the Misplaced Pages:Mediation Cabal/Cases list? Thanks. --Kkmurray (talk) 04:09, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Ack. Looks like my recent change to the case list screwed with the bot. I'm not entirely sure how, though. I'll check in an hour; I changed one thing. Xavexgoem (talk) 04:48, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh, wow. No, this started happening a week or so ago. Guess we'll need to manually update the list, now. Xavexgoem (talk) 04:50, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

New and Open cases

It seems that the bot is either broken or is going really slowly. I marked Ganas as open yesterday and it hasn't been updated yet. Mr R00t 23:32, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, something's up with the bot. Dunno what. I've done a manual update. Xavexgoem (talk) 11:20, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Great, let me know if you continue to need help with the bot. I could look at it. Mr R00t 02:26, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

This botfail is really annoying. I have no knowledge of bottery, so can someone skilled in this art spank it? -- Scjessey (talk) 19:20, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Yay! The bot seems to be working again. Own up to fixing it and receive a generous slice of good cheer pie! -- Scjessey (talk) 19:13, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Template to inform

Is there a uniform template that informs users of a case that can be posted on parties' walls? -- Lord Roem (talk) 21:56, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

If you rummage around in Category:Misplaced Pages Mediation Cabal you might find a couple.

Personally, I'm not entirely happy with what I've found so far, and have resorted to hand-rolled notifications.

bobrayner (talk) 22:59, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Backlog/older cases

In some of the older cases on the 'cases still needing a mediator' list, I propose that we contact the filing party and ask if Mediation is still something they want to pursue. We have a few cases that have been sitting there since October and November.

Also, could this become an actual Mediation Cabal policy? "If a case has been pending for over 60 days/two months, then an effort will be made to contact the filing party to ensure mediation is still a sought process."

Thoughts? -- Lord Roem (talk) 18:11, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

That sounds sensible. Old cases sitting around idle don't help anyone.

It might be a good idea to suggest other forms of dispute resolution, just in case the requestor is open to alternatives (ie. there's still a problem). No? bobrayner (talk) 19:03, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely. For the instances of idle cases and cases where not all parties agree to mediation, we should certainly suggest an alternative like an RfC. -- Lord Roem (talk) 19:20, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

With thanks to Roem for contacting me, I affirm this idea; I need to wait a bit longer on my own MedCab request because we are in the heavy phase of an unrelated ArbCom and I have been on wikibreak. So I need to follow up with the other MedCab disputants still, and their prior position has been to ignore appeal to MedCab anyway; but we'll do our part to keep the gears grinding. Thanks also to Atama and PhilKnight who mediated the other case helpfully but without formal resolution, prior to the ArbCom appeal. JJB 19:53, 16 January 2011 (UTC) I am now ready for Lord Roem to mediate the open case between me and PiCo. I will allude to difficulties of the case at User talk:Lord Roem and User talk:PhilKnight. JJB 20:10, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Request for Comment which could be of interest

There's a Request for Comment which could be of interest at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/dispute resolution. PhilKnight (talk) 00:16, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Ooh! Fun! :-D Xavexgoem (talk) 16:56, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Suggestions please - if this is on your watchlist please have a look!

I would like to assist blocked editors in getting unblocked. I don't want to start an entire wiki project, but do you think I would have to? Would like many other volunteers to join me too.

Ok, so I've put that out there! Let's have a brainstorm eh? Egg Centric (talk) 18:45, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

So starting out, how about a template like {{unblock}}, but instead of it summoning an administrator, it summons one of us prospective volunteers to come along and help prepare the block request? Egg Centric (talk) 18:48, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Might want to check out WP:AMA :-) Xavexgoem (talk) 01:17, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Change in template

I just wanted to note here that I have made an addition to the mediation case template. I have added a section for "Acceptance of Mediation" by participants. As mediation requires all parties to contribute in the search for a resolution, this should be a must for all cases to proceed. Regards, Lord Roem (talk) 18:26, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. Couple things:

• In a dispute of 10, you're more likely to get the support of one editor with the tacit acceptance from the nine others. We're allowing that one editor to stop efforts on a technicality from an imposed process, where as before you could depend a bit on peer pressure (if that were your mode of operating).
• Mediators should be allowed to control the process as completely as possible. I think it's good for mediators to set up this type of process, but enforcing it (by mere presence) gives less room to maneuver if they have something else in mind.
• We've had a mediator solve a dispute via approximately five AN/I threads (not recommended). The definition of mediation has always been somewhat loose, here. Often it can turn into downright advocacy if you have one correct editor (90% of the time it's pretty obvious who's right) and a couple of incorrect but more persuasive editors.
• A lot of mediators are here for the pure challenge of it, and part of what makes our cases solvable at all is the general lack of hard rules. It allows for more creativity.

Normally these are hints that would go in IRC (in sekrit, but TINC), but that hasn't been active for a while years. Xavexgoem (talk) 01:04, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I actually like it - I always ask for everyone for formally acceptance personally, and I don't see that it hurts to encourage people to acknowledge that they are aware of and participating in the mediation. I think I'm going to move it higher on the page, though. --Ludwigs2 05:30, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I really don't like imposing a process on mediators aside from what we have. I'm not gonna bother changing it, unless/until I see a party say "we can't do this, X hasn't signed up for it" when X can be a minor player who's on your side, or X is an obstinant ass who fears mediation will hurt his chances of including his POV, etc., etc. Xavexgoem (talk) 06:06, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

well, yeah, there is that. I'll bow to your judgement, whatever you want to do with it; It's not a huge issue. --Ludwigs2 06:35, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I certainly understand where you're coming from. I still believe that mediation is bound to fail if you reach agreement with four but two others still reject that compromise since they weren't involved. Its not something I really strongly care about, so feel free to change it back. I would like more imput from others though. Regards, Lord Roem (talk) 17:49, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

You're right about that. My biggest concern is honestly the first bullet point above; the others are secondary. Again, I won't change it unless one of my mediations goes that route. Xavexgoem (talk) 20:32, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

change in header template and categorization

I've edited {{MedcabStatus}} so that the cases are now sorted by page name in the category pages (rather than all being lumped under M, as they previously were). However, there are still a bunch of old cases that were pre-template and categorized by hand. would it be worth the effort of getting a bot to go through those and add sortkeys to the category link? --Ludwigs2 15:53, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Not really :-p Xavexgoem (talk) 01:09, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Nice work

The inbox is looking a lot tidier now; more cases are being mediated; all is well with the world. Well done, all you lovely medcab cabal people. bobrayner (talk) 03:30, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Stalled case

The case here http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2011-04-12/fractional_reserve_banking appears to have stalled. I made a point that I think needs an answer from another editor I am in dispute with and they are refusing to answer. The mediator appears absent and so the whole thing has come to a grinding halt. Maybe mediation is not suitable for this particular dispute, maybe the case needs to be closed. I think it needs the help of a very experienced editor as there are some long standing problems involved. Reissgo (talk) 08:38, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

This will probably file under stupid questions

Have you thought of and ad campaign? I've seen plenty of discussion pages where things get ugly but only do I see there is people willing to help. Wouldn't it be good if we paste the little ad above at the top of discussion pages on controversial topics? It would be a subtle of offering help. If people is interested, they can file a request. Asinthior (talk) 22:23, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

We do already have an advert over at {{wikipedia ads}}:

Misplaced Pages ads	file info – #211

However, it's more about recruiting mediators than recruiting disputes - and {{wikipedia ads}} is not exactly widely used on article talkpages! bobrayner (talk) 23:07, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I think Asinthior meant more incorporating a link to the cabal in one of the banners that sometimes gets put on talk pages. Something like:

This article has been identified as a potential area of controversy. If a dispute is getting out of hand, the Mediation Cabal may be able to help provide informal dispute resolution.

Not an advert but more a pointer I suppose. Not really sure I agree but maybe it's worth considering? Bob House 884 (talk) 23:36, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I did mean the ad, although a banner would work just fine too. I know you guys want to have more mediators and less disputes to mediate, but on the other hand, think of all the people out there who may need you and don't know of your existence.

By the way, I want to join. So maybe I'll pick up a case tomorrow morning (with a fresh "head"). Let this be a general warning that I may cry for help the minute I start as mediator. Be afraid, be very afraid. Asinthior (talk) 23:56, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Ah okay, yeah I think that would be kind of irregular - good luck with your mediating though :) Bob House 884 (talk) 00:02, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Enjoy mediation!

Actually, we've recently worked through a big backlog of cases - there used to be several more cases awaiting mediators. Also, it's not entirely straightforward to characterise volunteers in terms of wanting fewer cases - a would-be mediator who wanted lower workload could simply close their browser and go walk in the park instead. Personally, I'd rather see more cases - so we can make more articles happy. bobrayner (talk) 00:15, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Well there you go, if you want reach out to more people then an ad campaign is in order. Asinthior (talk) 01:34, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Open Case without users

Hi, I was just checking on the list of open cases without a mediator yet and there was only one left. I took a look at the page and the user requesting the mediation and the other party do not exist (they are both red links). What does that mean? Did they both packed up their things, deleted their user pages and left Wikpedia for good? And what should we do about it? I mean, if there is no interested party anymore, we should close the case or something. Asinthior 14:03, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi there, Both users do exist, they've just chosen not to create user pages, one also doesn't have a user talk page but User:Derek farn has one here. Some users choose not to have user pages for one reason or another. This issue does appear rather stale however - neither party has done acted or discussed anything relating to Power law for almost two weeks besides starting the case and both have not been very active since. Best, Bob House 884 (talk) 14:15, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh, OK. Never thought the red link meant they just never bothered to write something at their user pages. What you say about them not being active seems to be a symptom of disputes. The one case I'm trying to mediate has a similar situation. From the three users that agreed to mediation only one is still active while the others obviously took a break from WP, as they haven't contributed anywhere on WP in the last couple of weeks. I'm still waiting for them to come back to see if they still want/need mediation. Asinthior 12:02, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-06-30/Michael Tsarion

What's wrong with the template at the top of Misplaced Pages:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-06-30/Michael Tsarion? The Mark of the Beast (talk) 21:45, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

It seems to be an issue with all of the old mediation cabal cases. I'll look into a solution. Thanks for letting us know. Steven Zhang 22:01, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2011-06-24/Falkland Islands Sovereignty Dispute

Whilst I realise mediators are volunteers, we had a rather strange mediation attempt in this case. Could I ask for a second look please? Wee Curry Monster talk 10:05, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Note that this section contains our mediator's entire contribution to the case. Pfainuk talk 16:55, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I'd actually go further and say that the mediator might need to be thanked for his kind offer but told he is not a good fit. --Narson ~ Talk • 03:37, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with all of the above. We would need a more active mediator (daily involved if possible) to bring some order. Discussion tends to drift constantly. --Langus (talk) 00:34, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Archive rolloff fail

Anyone know why Non-lethal weapon isn't rolling off to the archive? I closed it more than 24 hours ago. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:39, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Dunno why. I've notified the bot operator. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:03, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Seems rather odd. The case is properly closed. I might contact another bot operator to create a bot, say User:MedCabBot as MiszaBot also does not list the cases correctly. Steven Zhang 01:24, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Taking a harder look, I'll bet that it's because I either included in the comment section (a) an EL to a diff or (b) the date part of my signature (i.e. I used ~~~~ instead of ~~~ to sign it). Rather than experimenting with it, however, I'm going to leave it the way it is so the bot op can tell us for sure, as that would be useful knowledge to have. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:35, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Stalled Mediation on Zoellick Bio

I just learned that the mediator of the dispute on the Zoellick bio is no longer involved in Mediation Cabal. Who is picking up the slack?Currency1 (talk) 08:22, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Inexperienced editors as mediators

We've had a number of occasions recently where mediators accepted a mediation and then just walked away in the middle of it. When you look back, it would appear that many of them were not particularly experienced as editors. I wouldn't want to forbid inexperienced editors from being mediators, but should we perhaps at least discourage them by removing the "Newbies are encouraged to join" line from Misplaced Pages:Mediation Cabal/lede and perhaps saying something about getting some experience working as neutrals at WP:3O or WP:DRN or helpers at WP:EA before jumping into MedCab. On the other hand, perhaps it's not so much experience in DR that they need as just a demonstration of having staying power at WP in general. Thoughts? Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:07, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

This is an issue that I do see, and is common with new editors jumping into MedCab. Inexperience at tactics to use in mediation is also a potential issue. We don't want MedCab to become a real cabal (ooh the irony) but I do think this needs to be balanced with having mediators that can actually mediate effectively enough to be a positive input to a dispute. I think we should discuss this with Xavexgoem. Steven Zhang 21:24, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I've invited Xav. It's kind of interesting that there is such a jump in qualification for neutrals from the "lower" DR processes, up through MedCab, to the high level required for MedCom, particularly since a dispute is far more likely to obtain a result (or at least some service) from the lower levels than it is from MedCom. No criticism implied there, just an observation. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:37, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

(ec x2) I'm somewhat involved here, but I think it's fair to point out that the mediation-requester in one of the cases you refer to, immediately proceeded to the Dispute Resolution noticeboard (they had previously suggested a desire for an arbitration case as well), where they were told by a longstanding administrator that their behaviour was displaying "a persistence in the use of synthesis, exaggeration, and out of context quotation for what they admit had become a personal quarrel" and that they should've been blocked. It would need a fairly experienced mediator to deal with this sort of approach being repeated endlessly for more than two months over just the same two proposed sentences.

Having said that, I don't think it could do much harm to remove "Newbies are encouraged to join". A significant number of editors seem to take the view that they are experienced editors once they have over 100 edits, so it's not going to discourage all that many. I've not followed any medcab cases closely other than the two that I've been involved in, but if the majority of cases are similar, in terms of vast swamps of words and/or vast swamps of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, then it's not wise to encourage anyone other than a fairly experienced editor or fairly experienced mediator to take them on. There are relatively other few tasks or projects where an editor would be expected to focus on one small issue for three months or more.

Incidentally, the WP:ADOPT program has certain minimum time/editcount requirements (not too onerous) for adopters, which do sometimes seem to get enforced, and something similar might be a good idea here. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:43, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm wary of setting up lots of strict rules - it might not be entirely compatible with the informal/lightweight ethos of medcab - but removing the "newbies" thing is certainly a good start. bobrayner (talk) 21:54, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

(ec) How about we write, instead of "Newbies are encouraged to join" we write "Users new to MedCab are encouraged to join". We don't want to make it restrictive, but at the same time I think too often that new mediators here at times are too inexperienced with dispute resolution or with Misplaced Pages in general. Steven Zhang 22:16, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I've only mediated a few cases (successfully, thus far) over a long period. I only offer my assistance if I have a block of time to devote to mediating. I've seen some mediators accept cases when they're snowed under with other stuff, and it is circumstances like that when you get folks wandering off. I'm surprised to hear about cases lasting "three months or more" though. In my experience, the average has been around a week. The goal is to get people to talk to each other and resolve the dispute themselves, rather than trying to wade in and resolve it for them. I focus on mediation techniques and avoid getting into discussion about content if at all possible. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:13, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, you guys are right. Demiurge in particular: most people consider themselves "experienced" after about 100 edits, or an extended stay on one article. My feeling was that you'd be at that level of experience by the time you even wandered across MedCab, but that they might still consider themselves "newbies". Xavexgoem (talk) 07:23, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I became interested in acting as a mediator after having a pleasant experience on the receiving end of mediation. I was impressed by the work of the mediator, and I wanted to emulate his example. Perhaps experiencing mediation should be one of the requirements of being a mediator? I don't think it is necessary, but I thought I'd put it out there. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:57, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I'll disagree with you on that one (don't take it personally; I disagree with everybody). Although I wouldn't accuse you personally, any dispute which can't be resolved on the article talkpage (and hence ending up here) has a higher probability of including personalities which are incompatible to some extent, or somebody a bit abrasive/intransigent, or somebody convinced that they have The Truth and that any & every process must be followed to get that Truth into the article - and those people are less likely to be good mediators, I fear. Certainly there are some good potential mediators among the mediatees, but if we only fished in that pool we wouldn't consistently catch the best fish. bobrayner (talk) 13:10, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Interesting perspective. I have been involved in one dispute that went to mediation, in another that went to ArbCom (for which I was sanctioned), in another that went to ArbCom (for which I was not sanctioned) and I've been blocked several times. By your rationale, I would be a terrible candidate to act as a mediator; nevertheless, I have mediated successfully on a number of occasions. When I pick a case to pick up, I specifically avoid any case that covers a topic I am interested or knowledgeable in so that I don't have any vested interest in any outcome. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:38, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I was thinking about this overnight and it occurs to me that now DRN appears to be successful that with it and 3O we may have the "mostly informal" part of dispute resolution pretty well covered. Since MedCab currently leaves mediators pretty much free to conduct a mediation however they please, it would appear that the only difference between MedCab and the two forums I just mentioned is in the detail and, frankly, I'm not sure that there is any substantial difference in MedCab and DRN except in the mechanics of listing a dispute. Though it flies in the face of the "cabal" notion, could it be time for MedCab to become somewhat more formal as a midpoint between the two mostly informal lower processes and the very-formal MedCom? If so, then mediator experience might be a good place to start. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:56, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Here’s an idea: Require those wanting to be a Moderator to post a bond of “a significant amount” (an exact number to be determined at a later date); This will give them an incentive NOT to “just walk away” from a matter. Once is an accident: Twice, unfortunate. Three times you will have a LOT of explaining to do (though it may not help). A. J. REDDSON

Not sure if that's a serious suggestion, but it seems sensible that mediators who go AWOL should be subject to block or other sanctions. Brmull (talk) 05:54, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I never joke and I never use sarcasm; It was a very serious suggestion. The practicality of it might be disputable (part of why I keep the amount of the bond such a vaguery) but I am very serious. A. J. REDDSON

I also think someone who wants to be a mediator should be mentored at least once by an another mediator. I realize that could make it harder to recruit new mediators, but it's worth trying out to see if it's practical. Brmull (talk) 06:04, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Mentoring sounds good. I doubt it would restrict recruitment of new moderators if we keep it lightweight and use careful marketing. Frame the mentor more as a "coach" than an "overseer". bobrayner (talk) 10:38, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I think that making changes to MedCab would be a good idea. With the new dispute resolution noticeboard, MedCab at present is redundant and somewhat inferior to DRN, due to more structure and more eyes. It might be worthwhile discussing changes to make MedCab more of a middle ground between lower methods of DR and MedCom. Steven Zhang 06:39, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that MedCab could do with an update. Although I haven't actually done anything here so far, the only major difference I see is that there is more space on MedCab pages than there is at the DRN. I think more structure at MedCom and a certain recommended minimum experience level for mediators would be a good idea. I also think we should get MedCom involved in this discussion after we have come up with a few more ideas: the dispute resolution ladder has already been altered with the addition of the DRN, and any decision here has the potential to alter it further. Getting MedCom's input about how MedCab could fit in to the structure and what the requirements might be for the different types of mediation seems like a necessary step to me. Having said that, I think we need something to bring to the table before we ask them. — Mr. Stradivarius 09:37, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

A few thoughts. MedCab was originally created to train new editors how to mediate. I think that Misplaced Pages has evolved greatly since Medcab was created in 2005, and Medcab has been made somewhat redundant since I created DRN. I also note that MedCom accepts few cases, and MedCab has taken few new cases recently, which as of recent has at times been used when one user was unhappy with a consensus elsewhere. We need to take care here, to ensure we keep to our care of duty to parties to mediator effectively and at the same time not turn away new users completely, we could either direct users new to DR to DRN or co-mediate. We don't want to become a shadow MedCom, but at the same time I think some structure would be of benefit. I think it's a discussion worth having, how to move forward. Steven Zhang 12:40, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

This may be a bit of a radical suggestion, but might it be worth thinking about shutting down MedCab completely and purely using the DRN for informal mediation? This would have the advantage of making the dispute resolution hierarchy a lot simpler, but I have to admit that I do like the idea of MedCab as a place to train new mediators. — Mr. Stradivarius 13:04, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

This is heavy duty... Xavexgoem (talk) 14:03, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I think that dispute-resolution is one field where we benefit from having more options, rather than fewer. bobrayner (talk) 14:07, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

That's what I was going to say, but this might be kind of a "writing on the wall" situation, among other things. Here's the short version: Firstly, It's worth pointing out that MedCab had quite a large caseload this summer, far in excess of MedCom. We've always had peaks and troughs. Secondly, I am not convinced that DRN has made MedCab redundant, or that redundancy is a bad thing. Noticeboards can be problematic: They're potent echo-chambers, prone to pile-ons, and can cause the community immense inertia. At least here we give leeway, and we don't run the risk of becoming gatekeepers for content, and therefore deny others that chance. It's a cynical assessment, yes, but it's proven true in the past. Xavexgoem (talk) 14:10, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

The workload of MedCom fluctuates too, and we receive a lot of interest in some months—and little or none in others. It would be rather an overreaction to close the MedCab page. AGK 22:45, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, that suggestion was probably a little too radical... I should clarify that I don't have any particular preference to what we do, as long as it works best for the 'pedia. — Mr. Stradivarius 03:40, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Part of what needs to be decided is whether DR is a linear process or a series of alternate choices. The Cabal — and yes, I am referring to it/us as an actual, if ad-hoc, entity — may have a unique opportunity to influence that issue. With DRN's success, MedCab can become an intermediary step in which we set the project guidelines to reject any cases which haven't previously gone to 3O, DRN, or WQA and to at least suggest that mediators have some experience. Here's a draft of what that might look like. I'd like to hear what others think. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:45, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Picking up Transporterman's point, my view is that such a question has never been indeterminate: roughly speaking, the dispute-resolution process has always been linear. Minor disputes are always referred to the earliest steps, with 3O being first and RFC second; more complex disputes are referred first to these and then to MedCab, or escalated directly to mediation in less simple cases; and protracted disputes will then be referred to MedCom. In the event of a serious stalemate, ArbCom will then be asked to issue a ruling. Underlying all this, we also expect the parties to have exhaustively discussed the issues, usually on the article talk page.

I have not made much effort to follow the progress of DRN, but I am told that it has been quite the success. However, I understand that its function is not to be part of the DR process, but to separate the wheat from the chaff at the outset by resolving very obvious disputes, perhaps that are caused by one party misunderstanding policy, or that can be solved at a content level with little effort. The noticeboard refers disputants to an appropriate stage of the resolution process, and does little else. It has also been suggested that MedCab is redundant to DRN, but I cannot reconcile that notion with my understanding of the Noticeboard—unless of course I have misunderstood its function entirely.

Finally, I never understood MedCab to be a provider of mediation, in the sense that MedCom is, but rather a confluence (or meeting-point) of mediators to which parties can come to request that a mediator attend to their dispute. For the visually minded, an image may be easier: if the mediator is a taxi driver, then the disputants are a group wanting a ride, and their destination is never the taxi rank itself. And it doesn't matter where the taxi rank is, so long as it is accessible. MedCab is our taxi rank of mediators, but DRN equally could be; what matters is that low-level mediation is accessible to all parties who require it. AGK 14:08, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Some of the others who have been active at DRN may have a somewhat different view, but DRN was intended to be somewhat part of the DR process in that simple disputes which could be sorted out there would be whereas the more complex ones would be "kicked upstairs". I wasn't around at the very beginning (though I didn't come much later) so I don't know how it worked at first but in practice since I've been there, most of the disputes which go there — I haven't counted, but I suspect from observation that it's in the 80-90% range — get sorted out there, with only a few being given the boot. For that reason, I do think that DRN and MedCab are largely redundant. But I do not conclude from that fact that MedCab should be shut down. Instead, I think that it needs to distinguish itself from DRN (and 3O and perhaps WQA) by having, or at least trying to have, more experienced mediators and only accepting disputes which have already had a touch of DR but which failed to settle. It could also distinguish itself by trying to conform more closely to true mediation rather than what's done at 3O and DRN (which is more often like rendering a judgment from a neutral point of view than it is attempting to get the parties to come to agreement without expressing, except as only one of the tools in the mediator's tool bag, the mediator's opinion of the correct outcome) but I have some serious doubt about, first and more importantly, the ability of the Cabal to impose that particular set of skills and discipline on ad-hoc volunteer mediators and, second, about the efficacy and practicality of true mediation (in which I am frequently involved in the real world) to WP (a subject too long for this slabotext). Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:58, 21 September 2011 (UTC) PS: On the question of linearity I see 3O (where I have worked extensively) and DRN as parallel processes. I'm not sure where (or if) I see RFC fitting in. The only way content disputes can be ultimately settled is to obtain consensus. That can be achieved by getting the disputants to come to agreement or by attracting in enough additional editors that one or the other side achieves consensus and the other does not. In one sense, then, RFC is the court of last resort when all other content DR fails to get the parties to agree and, as such, I don't really see it in the linear part of the process. Other content-resolving noticeboards (for example, RSN, BLPN, and CP) are also an "unofficial" part of DR that can be hard to fit in linearly. TM 15:11, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I feel the same as Steven here - I like TransporterMan's draft, but I think the requirements are a bit strict. 5000 edits should definitely be relaxed - I see that would disqualify two members of MedCom, for one thing. I'm thinking that definitely over 1000 and a guideline of 2000 may be about right. I would be open to cutting the number of completed cases at DRN, 3O or WQA, but I don't think 10 is unreasonable at all. I agree with the other conditions, especially the one about being willing to see a mediation through. Also, I like the tone of it too - just the right balance of seriousness and humour. — Mr. Stradivarius 12:28, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Yuck. I'm sorry, but I think this is entirely going in the wrong direction. First of all, MedCab is not an "intermediary step", but rather it is more tangential. It differs from something like WP:3O in the way that the focus is on helping editors to come to an agreement, as opposed to giving opinions about content. Secondly, the ability to mediate disagreement or deadlock among editors is not directly linked to Misplaced Pages experience. And frankly, where is the logic of formalizing entry requirements for something that is supposed to be informal? I think we need only one "requirement" - that anyone accepting a case implicitly agrees to follow the case through to its conclusion, or arrange to hand the case off to another mediator if there is some impediment. If I volunteer to work in a soup kitchen, I don't want someone to tell me I need to have made soup at least 2000 times and be familiar with stock and broth before being allowed to participate. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:00, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm certainly open to reducing the numbers, they were fairly arbitrarily chosen to begin with. I was thinking more like 2,500, but 2,000 vs 2,500 isn't a big deal. As for the number of prior DR's, I think 3 is too few and 12 is too many and don't have many druthers in between. Finally, I do want to note that the way they're currently written the qualifications are expressly optional; anyone who wants to mediate can still mediate and I have just now softened the lead in and lead out to the bullet points to make that more apparent. At one point in the drafting I had added a sentence (more artfully stated than I'm about to put it here) at the end saying something like, "Parties to a mediation should not consider these recommendations to be qualifications and should not regard a mediator as disqualified if he or she fails to meet them, but parties have the right to accept or reject a mediator for whatever reasons they may choose." I decided that was both stating the obvious and putting ideas in their heads and left it out. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:56, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

From a qualifications perspective, why not just say: "Though not requirements, the ideal mediator will have performed at least a thousand edits and accumulated experience in other forms of dispute resolution," or words to that effect? -- Scjessey (talk) 16:17, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Though I think the additional detail in the bullet points is useful, I'm open to the characterization of it as an ideal, though I'd like to see what the others here feel. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:35, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Section break

I can see where Scjessey is coming from. At this stage, MedCab is not an intermediary step. I do think that some requirements should be considered for case acceptance and mediators if we are to become a more intermediate option, as I have stated previously MedCab is somewhat inferior and redundant at present since DRN was created and evolved into what it is now. The problem with DR has in a way become worse at present as opposed to before DRN was created, as there are now four alternative steps to take before MedCom for resolution of content disputes, as opposed to before when there were only three. I've created a diagram to demonstrate.

Content disputes, as opposed to conduct disputes, have no real method of final resolution. I've created another diagram to demonstrate the two. Perhaps that's something that needs to be discussed on a larger community scale, but I do see it an issue with some conduct disputes (I/P, Senkaku, Abortion etc) that they often go around in circles within the DR processes until it's such a mess that ArbCom ends up issuing a scorched earth style solution. Before it gets to this, a lot of disruption to the wiki is caused and I wonder if there isn't a better way. In the past many ways of bringing binding resolution to content disputes have been proposed, none have really caught on. Perhaps this is something that also should be discussed. The process for resolving conduct disputes is pretty clear cut, which I have demonstrated in the above diagram, however resolution for content disputes not so. Perhaps it would be worth streamlining content dispute resolution as well. I think we should start off though by changing MedCab to be a more intermediate step. The first diagram I made has two possible changes, I prefer option two but would like to know what others think. Steven Zhang 03:53, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

• Proposed new structure 1 can't be achieved without changes at 3O, because it also requires talk page discussion before you can get a 3O. Even without that technical barrier, I think 3O should be on the second level with DRN because it does much the same work with slightly different guidelines (the most important of which are, in my opinion, (a) only two parties, (b) that 3O opinions unlike the opinions of mediators at DRN cannot be "counted" towards consensus, and (c) 3O opinions are usually given without the opinion-giver becoming involved in long subsequent discussion, they're just that, an opinion given on a take it or leave it basis).
• Unless we're going to put up a notice about this at the Village Pump, we're probably not going to achieve any real participation in this discussion. From the last couple of RFC's on DR (see links here), which have fizzled out for lack of interest, I'm not sure that's a bad thing. I'd like to see us do this like Steven did with the creation of DNR: let's just do it boldly and see if we get reverted.

Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:07, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I'm not keen on strict hierarchies; it risks devolving into a bureaucracy rather than a genuine attempt to solve a wide range of different problems. I'm happy with the principle that talkpages should be the first resort before formal mechanisms are involved, and I'm happy with the principle that MedCabArbCom should only be tried when another DR approach has failed, but other than that I'm really wary of drawing up a strict flowchart. bobrayner (talk) 16:33, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

MedCab is the place to go when involved editors are having problems working together, which isn't always a content dispute. I've always seen it as an intermediate step before going to WP:ANI, in the same way that MedCom is an intermediate step before going to ArbCom. It's position in the dispute resolution hierarchy isn't clear. And I've always thought the "informal" part of "informal mediation" was really important. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:03, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Oops; I meant to say ArbCom instead of MedCab. Sorry for any confusion. bobrayner (talk) 17:23, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

MedCab generally deals with content disputes. I acknowledge the common concern about adding bureaucracy but note that it often is made without substantiating evidence. As I see it, 4 methods of DR at one level is a bit much, and DRN is pretty much MedCab in a different format. I realise change is hard to accomplish, but I achieved a lot when I created DRN, so I think I can do good work again transforming MedCab. Perhaps a little bureaucracy is needed here. Many users who use DR are seasoned editors, but not all of them, and at present the best DR forum to use is confusing. Creating a simplified hierarchy makes things less complex. I agree MedCab shouldn't become super formal but a few extra rules and guidelines I think could only improve and evolve MedCab into something new. Steven Zhang 06:41, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree we should stay as informal as possible. I think we should be content to be an option besides DRN... just like we were essentially an option over 3O and RfC. A third option to third option? Xavexgoem (talk) 04:37, 26 September 2011 (UTC)