Wikipedia talk:Guerrilla Mediation Network

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Whole buncha mediation

Comment inadvertently posted at "Talk:Wikipedia:Guerrilla Mediation Network", moved here – Gurch 00:05, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

So we have Wikipedia:Requests for mediation, Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal, and now Wikipedia:Guerrilla Mediation Network. What's next? A Jimmy Wales Intervention system? —THIS IS MESSEDImage:R with umlaut.pngOCKER (TALK) 01:10, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Don't forget WP:3O. Grouse 09:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] MfD Result Notice

This page was the subject of an MfD discussion closed on 28 July 2006. The result was Keep. Xoloz 15:18, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rescuscitation of this system

I have been really bold and removed the "historical" tags from the main page and templates, as I am going to try and resurrect this initiative. The reason why I am doing this is because, at the present, the Mediation Cabal and the Mediation Committee are both struggling with excessive workload, and it is my view that this initiative may be able to remove some of the working strain. There are mediators behind the scenes here, including myself, who will respond to requests within approximately 24-36 hours. If anyone would like to mediate, please let me know; we are running a short mediation training system, which involves about 30 minutes on IRC just going over the key points of what to do when. Thank you very much. With hopes of success, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 04:02, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WTF?

Is this page a joke? -- Ned Scott 00:13, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

No. It might be best to merge it with Wikipedia:Third opinion though. —Centrx→talk • 00:19, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Dear Ned: No, the Guerrilla Mediation Network is a perfectly serious endeavour, as an attempt to provide a tertiary "rapid access" mediation system whilst the MedCab and MedCom are swamped with cases. However, I would say our aim is quite different to that of WP:3O, as rather than merely providing an outside opinion we seek to directly mediate disputes at their source via performing the mediation on the article's talk page. Yours, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 20:43, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
>.< I'm... just going to take this off my watch list and pretend it doesn't exist. You people are insane. -- Ned Scott 05:58, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
May I ask, Ned, in which way are we insane? I am sure that most Wikipedians will agree the present mediation systems are not coping with the workload expeditiously enough, causing disputes that could be mediated to become exponentially worse the longer that they are not addressed by a competent person. The aim of this initiative is to avoid the issues caused by cases "rotting" on mediation request lists by providing rapid mediator assistance. Does this seem insane to you? Please, I implore you, remember WP:CIVIL. Thank you. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 18:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Community enforceable mediation experimental rollout

Community enforceable mediation has entered a 90 day experimental phase. Other mediation venues often get backlogged so mediators may wish to refer some cases to this new program. Suitable cases would have:

  • Two disputants.
  • No allegations of sockpuppetry.
  • Aspects of user conduct/policy violations overlapping the content dispute.
  • Basically mature and reasonable participants.

Regards, DurovaCharge! 04:31, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template location on talk pages

I looked at a few of these and saw that in some cases the {{guerrilla-mediation-request}} template has been placed up at the top of pages with WikiProject and maintenance templates and the TOC.

I think it's more useful in chronological order, below the most recent posts. If project members agree, can this be specified in the project page instructions? — Athaenara 09:08, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Possible resurrection?

I think this system works better than medcab in many instances... although I think a possibility is to not template the talk page. It'd be kinda cabal-ish, but I think informal mediators would have better luck if no-one knew they were being informally mediated ;-)

So, I ask myself, what are the cons to not having the talk page templated w/ a notice of informal mediation? Ah, yes, because of the ad-hoc nature of this form of dispute resolution, it would be hard to tell if someone were using their informal mediation "powers" for ill (because there'd be no history of them being there)! I say assume good faith on their part, and allow a system of quickly denying whether a case can be solved via this path. I'm rambling, but, hey, this is historical.

Just wondering if anyone has this on their watch page and wants to comment. Xavexgoem (talk) 22:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Also think that "guerrilla" should remain: it invokes a certain type of editor to consider this route, I think. I'm in total cabal mode, now. Xavexgoem (talk) 22:26, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that this is something that should be resuscitated :) Seddon69 (talk) 16:14, 20 April 2008 (UTC)