Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/2007 Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Archive
Archives
edit

Contents

Naughty Bot :(

Hi guys! Ive been in MedCab for a couple of weeks now and im on case number 5, with 2 closed and one about to be, but none of them ever seem to be listed on the open cases list. I make sure ive been changing the status fields on the mediation page to open, is there something else ive been missing? Talk to you all soon Squad'nLeedah 20:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, the bot's been dead the past two weeks and I've been unable to contact Ericj about it, so that's probably why. :D Cowman109Talk 20:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Well that would do it.... Squad'nLeedah 23:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I've gotten my hands on the bot's code so we at least have a temporary, manually updatable measure until we get a dedicated bot running up again. Cowman109Talk 23:42, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Mediator left Wikipedia, need another

Ars Scriptor (talk · contribs) was the mediator for Talk:Muhammad/Mediation, but he retired from Wikipedia a month ago. Anyone else want to step up? - Merzbow 22:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll do it, but I'll need time to read it first. | AndonicO Talk | Sign Here 13:22, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Harvard law class will be mediating as an assignment

http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/foi/Day_3_Assignment_-_Participate_in_Wikipedia_Dispute_Resolution

I'm sorta fine with this. I'm way too happy to have more vict^w volunteers to complain.

It'd be interesting to see how they do. It might be a VERY difficult assignment though.

Kim Bruning 22:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

It looks really, really, bad for the bot to be down and not updating the lists. Can anyone do anything about this? --Ideogram 22:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Toolserver problem? Kim Bruning 22:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Note that the assignment page has pages for group results. This includes which pages they'll try to be mediating. If you keep an eye on the group results over the weekend, you can try to make sure nothing will go totally wrong. I suggest being somewhat hands off, but it might be wise to help if things go over peoples' heads. I'll leave that up to individual judgement. :-) Kim Bruning 22:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

The assigment was due by monday. I wonder how the professor evaluated them! :-) Kim Bruning 23:59, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I am extremely disappointed in Wikipedia for their hostile and paranoid reaction to this class project. At least three of the groups were treated with suspicion and their motives were questioned. One was accused of being a bunch of sockpuppets. Despite the Wikipedia policy of "Don't bite the newbies" these students were clearly treated as unwelcome outsiders. --Ideogram 00:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
That does suck. Even so, the students held their ground. :-)
In the mean time, can we think of ways to improve peoples behaviour towards students? I'd very much like to see professors send more of their students our way, you never know, some might stick around. :-) Kim Bruning 01:00, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Plus it's educating the future. Geo. 05:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

It was a nice thought, but honestly, I don't think it's much of a fair assignment. Unless that was the point of the assignment. It takes quite some time to become acclimated to the ins and outs of Wikipedia society and its inner workings, and I think that pointing and saying "fix it" (especially recommending starting at something controversial like terrorism, the kind of dispute that never gets solved) is setting the students up for failure. However, it really ought to go without saying that people should be nice to newcomers. - Che Nuevara 09:27, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually those students were doing pretty darn well, IMHO! It was just a number of very rude wikipedians that I'm more dissapointed with. They decided to slow the students down for whatever silly reason, instead of cooperating in good faith. Maybe we need a separate category of punishment for "sabotaging good faith actions" or something. :-P Kim Bruning 00:45, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh yeah, and we have an article on the professor too! :-) Kim Bruning 01:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts

Recently found Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts as another place to find trouble a-brewin' for people who want to pick up a simple case to practice with. :-) Kim Bruning 19:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Association of Members Advocates

I hadn't noticed before, but this long dead wiki-organisation actually seems to be operational again, and some of their setup looks suspiciously mediation-cabal-like ;-) <Griiiiiin> Kim Bruning 01:01, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Thats right we' re operational. Geo. 05:16, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Mediation between users and not articles

Hello -- I have a question, My request is for mediation between two users who argue incessantly over various articles. These two seem to argue regularly on various articles coming close to 3RR several times. Is this an appropriate place to get these two to play nice with others, or is there another/better venue? Rob110178 04:14, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

If they're both willing to agree to mediation then absolutely! Otheriwise, consider the section of the Administrators' Noticeboard used for 3RR violations. Flakeloaf 13:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Requesting assistance

Some people are leaving me non stop things on my talk page, i do not want them to ever to talk to me, reply on my talk page. Also what is the difference here between this mediation and administrator's notice board?Where this cabel come from, this is new? -Boxingwear Template:BoxingWear

Hello BoxingWear. Please use four tildes (~~~~) to sign your name. That way it adds a link to your user page and adds the time you posted your question, both of which are helpful. I reviewed the talk page entries that have been posted. I think there is a slight misunderstanding as to the purpose of a talk page on Wikipedia. Quoting from various parts of WP:TALK:

“ Discuss edits: The talk page is particularly useful to talk about edits. If one of your edits has been reverted, and you change it back again, it is good practice to leave an explanation on the talk page and a note in the edit summary that you have done so. The talk page is also the place to ask about another editor's changes. If someone queries one of your edits, make sure you reply with a full, helpful rationale.

Don't misrepresent other people: The record should accurately show significant exchanges that took place, and in the right context.

Don't edit others' comments: Refrain from editing others' comments without their permission (with the exception of prohibited material such as libel and personal details). It is not necessary to bring talk pages to publishing standards, so there is no need to correct typing errors, grammar, etc. It tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Never edit someone's words to change their meaning.

Don't change your text: Obviously you can edit or delete your own words, while you are still composing the initial text, but afterwards, you should not do so, as this will put others' comments in a different context. Even if no one has replied, someone may still have read what you have written — so think before you speak!

 ”

These policies apply to all talk pages, on Wikipedia, though most people probably agree that since user talk pages are in user space, you should have a little more say in what stays or goes on your talk page. I, for instance, state that I reserve the right to remove offensive content posted to my talk page. It really doesn't matter, because everything posted on Wikipedia is permanently archived. But at least I do not have to stare at it. :-)

If the comments added to the page were vandalism, spiteful, or full of hateful speech, reporting the incident on the Administrators' Notice Board is a good thing to do. Contacting an admin friendly to you in the past is not as good of a choice, because it could escalate the issue due to perceived conflict of interest. You case is a little different. The other parties appear to be using your talk page in a proper manner to engage in editorial discussions about certain articles and actions that have been taken on Wikipedia.

Threatening and intimidating the other user for continued good-faith attempts at communicating to resolve differences in opinion is not the most effective way to resolve this issue. I would suggest you open a mediation case here, and work together through the various issues the two of you are facing. It's not the edits on the talk page, but rather that edits in the articles that really need to be resolved. Once they are resolved, the other user is unlikely to write on your talk page any more.

I wish you the best of luck in resolving this. Please remember that everyone at Wikipedia should be working toward the same goal of improving the site. We just have different ways of going about it. It doesn't mean either party is necessarily wrong, but it can certainly feel that way sometimes. Open communication (the point of both the talk pages and this cabal) are the best ways of enacting that here at Wikipedia. Take care. --Willscrlt (Talk·Cntrb) 04:05, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow, i just notices this reply, nice to hear from you guys, any of you administrators, sysops, that's same? I disagree, some words do not belong on talk pages. But yea, i know, but I am saying, there are times when certain people just keep on pushing it and pushing, sure, I warn them, but you can only remain cool for so long you know... What is this place for, is it similar to noticeboard?Usually on administrators' site, I get no replies. Boxingwear

Members list gone

Heh! I just came here to have a look at how the Cabal has been doing since my involvement in it. (Hell, I don't even edit Wikipedia any more, really.) I notice the "list of cabalists" has finally gone! I am delighted. I had long considered the list to be a rather clunky inconvenience and a possible deterrent to people helping out in an ad hoc manner, as it were. The next step, if I might make a suggestion, would be to jettison the case list and sub-pages, replacing them with a Category:Active Mediation Cabal disputes which would be managed via a template placed on article talk-pages. Feel free to ignore me if this sounds ridiculous, of course, as I carry no authority here; it was just a thought. Keep up the good work! Cheers, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 03:56, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

This is of course not ridiculous. It probably is lower maintennance, which is a real concern given that the bot doesn't work reliably. But I, for one, like the convenience of having all status informations on one page, so I'd rather vote for keeping it.
Speaking of a template: It just so happens that I created a template to be placed on top of a mediated article: {{mediated}}. I haven't included a category, though, because I want it to be useful for both Mediation Cabale and Mediation Committee. I'll post this in a new thread below so we can discuss it under the correct headline. — Sebastian 03:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Lineal Heavyweight boxing champions

I think it ws gwnol who took it down, i mean, the voting was positive 5-1 to keep it, why was that article gone, I do not know, it must be there, there are too many bad articles on wiki, this one truly belongs, I will be willing to write it. That was truly stupid to take it down! Well, here are my other problems: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:BoxingWear#WP:MEDCAB Boxingwear

visiting after absence

Mediated about a dozen conflicts a long while ago, just stopping by to see what is going on. It would be great if someone could figure out our "success rate". What fraction of mediations actually begin, and what fraction are actually "resolved" in a positive fashion? Rather curious, Sdedeo (tips) 23:38, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

It's hard to define "success". I would say most often mediations just die because people lose interest. If those aren't "successes" then our success rate would be quite low, I'd estimate less than ten percent. --Ideogram 23:53, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Hee hee. I closed a number of cases that "died due to interest." I personally consider that a success -- it's rare to get an internet user to say "I was wrong" and I found that the grit-in-the-wheels participants preferred to just disappear. Sdedeo (tips) 01:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

BTW, Wikipedia:Mediation Committee isn't better. Incidentally, just last week I wanted to see if they had any success stories that we could learn from, but out of 99 cases I could only find two obvious successes (including one simple misunderstanding that was clarified with one question) and a handful of cases that were labelled as success, but I couldn't find out why. I asked about it on Wikipedia talk:Mediation Committee, but nobody replied so far. — Sebastian 03:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Neutral administrator needed, somebody who knows sports

Hi, I am having a big problem here, i do not want to leave any more replies on a certain page, because it may get me into trouble, i need somebody who knows something on boxing and will look at my situation from neutral point of view. -Boxingwear

Please follow the instructions under "Making a request for assistance" on the project page. — Sebastian 03:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

New template for mediated cases
This article is currently under mediation. Please refrain from any edits that could be seen as controversial, unless you are participating in the mediation and following the agreed upon procedure.

For the mediation case, please see: [[{{{1}}}]].

I created a template to be placed on top of a mediated article: {{mediated}}. I meant it to replace {{ActiveDiscuss}} and {{POV}}, although I left out theCategory:NPOV disputes, because they must have over 6000 articles in that category already, so anything we can do to reduce it probably helps, and if a case is mediated, it is already getting attention.

I want it to be useful for both Mediation Cabale and Mediation Committee, so I left out any specific reference to either, but if someone likes to add that, maybe via an optional parameter, I'd be fine with that. — Sebastian 03:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest the following adjustment:
This article is currently under mediation. Please refrain from any edits that could be seen as controversial, unless you wish to participate in the mediation and follow the agreed upon procedure.

For the mediation case, please see: [[{{{1}}}]].
to emphasize that any interested party is welcome to join the mediation at any time. --Ideogram 05:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

These kinds of tags are very useful and I encourage people to use them. Basically, they help avoid a common problem: "oh wait, despite our long exchange I promise I didn't know I was joining in a mediation, I refuse to do anything mediationy, and please f.off." Sdedeo (tips) 17:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I just changed the wording to this
This article is currently under mediation.
Some statements may be be disputed, incorrect, biased or otherwise objectionable. Please read the mediation case [[{{{1}}}]] before making substantial changes.
to address a concern raised on Wikipedia_talk:Mediation_Committee#New_template_for_mediated_cases that "neither the Mediation Committee nor the Mediation Cabal have the authority to order users not to edit an article, and certainly not to lock it down in the manner this template suggests. [...]".
Given that we sometimes even go as far as protecting pages altogether, I do see a use for a "pretty please protection" as an intermediate state between the above version and real protection. Maybe that could be reserved for tough cases or as a second level. That template could be called Template:Mediated2 in analogy to the user warning levels on WP:UW. What do others think? — Sebastian 22:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


The existing template has a more soothing color scheme and is designed for talk pages:

This article is currently the subject of informal mediation.

You are encouraged to read current and past discussion on this talk page.
The informal mediation case and its related discussion is [[{{{1}}}|here]].

Addhoc 23:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

We probably want to make sure that there is no confusion around the fact that this is informal mediation and not official mediation of the mediation committee. Perhaps instead of saying that an article is under mediation, it could say under 'informal mediation' and link to the mediation cabal instead of to Mediation? Cowman109Talk 23:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, seems to me like we're getting pretty caught up in formalities for an informal cabal, aren't we?  ;-) — Sebastian 23:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

While marking a talk page with a "this page is being mediated" template might work well at some times, I can also think of cases where it may have the opposite effect to what you intend. Resist the urge to just slap a tag on a page in a reflex. Like every other thing you can do, only apply the tag after you've gotten a good idea about what's going on, and are absolutely positive that this particular move will in fact have a positive effect towards reconciliation. If it doesn't, don't. Maintaining initiative is the most important thing, don't lose it! Like everything to do with mediation, be prepared -as a matter of procedure- to be flexible. ;-) Having said all that, it's an interestig tool to add to the inventory. :-) --Kim Bruning 22:38, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

  • would recommend that some kind of tag appear on an Article's Discussion page when an Informal Mediation process is underway. Otherwise, latecomers to a longstanding dispute pick up on the end of the old thread in the Discussion page without being aware that there's a parallel discussion underway in a separate mediation forum, the existance of which is invisible without a tag or redirect notice. JGHowes 21:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
This terrifies me. Imagine a new medcab member starting out, slapping on a tag, and thinking they're in control. Of course they're not, and they'll bring down the case *and* hurt the reputation of medcab all in one go. Something similar happened with the esperanza e's. Plausible deniability might not be such a bad thing. --Kim Bruning 23:47, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

woah woah

Sorry to create a new topic, but I want to emphasise my disagreement with having the template stuck on the article page itself. Didn't notice that. I really think doing that is a bad idea, if only because of the trouble it would lead to if other groups starting doing it (can you imagine the proliferation of tags on the article page -- "this article is currently under review by the wikipedia committee for X"). We're used to massive numbers of well-intentioned tags on talk pages, but I don't think we want to see the same creep for article pages except for long accepted tags like NPOV, etc. Sdedeo (tips) 05:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed - talk pages maybe, but definitely never on the article; the MedCab's role is to assist, not act as either a means of legitimising a dispute amongst participants (like the "totally disputed" tag) nor to steamroller an article into a state of being formally "mediated" via a huge banner at the top of it. If I recall the quote correctly, Bismarck once remarked that men should not have to know how either laws or sausages are made; article browsers should not have to know how article content is warred over, either, nor be presented with a war zone rather than an article. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 00:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree with this. We should not be sticking administrative notices on article pages. --Ideogram 05:59, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Request someone talk to Nurg

I just want somebody to talk to User:Nurg about his bad habit of marking major edits including reverts as "minor". This is something which User:Wik use to do a lot of, you would see in Wik's contribution listing Revert after Revert all marked as "minor" and all with "rv" as the description. Deleteing other people's work or inserting new content is not a "minor" edit in MHO.58.107.15.245 05:30, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Status board est. response time

This figure is really a complete guess. Cases that attract someone's interest might be taken up the same day, while the oldest case right now is over three weeks old. I suggest that we should simply remove this number. --Ideogram 06:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

If there is no protest here in the next few days I will remove the entire status board. --Ideogram 05:58, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
No objection here ;D. Cowman109Talk 06:15, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Go for it, it's been bugging me for a while too. Jem 09:35, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
It's gone. --Ideogram 11:20, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry in a MedCab case

Whilst I recognise that mediators should be completely neutral, which I have consistently tried to uphold whilst mediating Surrealism, what do I do when we have reached a consensus and then one of the parties disappears, but returns with a whole host of newly registered users (who type with the same syntax, have similar user pages, want the same things and keep reverting the same thing). This to me does look like a fairly obvious case of sockpuppetry, but as I am neutral, is it my place to report, ignore or what? Have a look here, you'll see what I mean. Jem 09:38, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I personally would file an RFCU, or, if I wanted to be more careful, offer to help anyone who wished to file an RFCU. But absolutely do not take action based on my opinion alone, since I have a history of being unable to maintain neutrality in the face of what I consider obvious abuse. --Ideogram 09:45, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
On second thought, I don't see anything wrong with going directly to WP:SSP. Many neutral observers there will help you make a determination. --Ideogram 09:48, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
I would ask a 3rd party to go to the Suspected Sockpuppetry board. Really, we could use a kind of discrete investigation group at times like these. :-) --Kim Bruning 22:28, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Haha, I agree. In the end I was forced to take the action of filing the report myself as his actions have begun to get out of hand. if this means stepping down as mediator in this case to presevre neutrality, I will, but ultimately my goal at all times is to protect the interests of Wikipedia. For the time being no-one has voiced any COI concerns. Jem 18:38, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
The status of WP:SSP is apparently somewhat in doubt. For quicker results, you may have to go to WP:RFCU directly. --Ideogram 10:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Third Opinion on Street Fighter discussion

The discussion on Street Fighter article naming conventions has almost run out of steam. Both sides have put up reasonable arguments on why their perspectives are worth listening to and I've tried pretty hard to argue in favour and against both of them at the same time throughout our chat. We've now come to the point where we're re-re-rehashing old points instead of bringing up new ones. Could someone else please take a look at the wall of text we've generated and offer their thoughts before I try to push this thing bedward? Flakeloaf 04:59, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

When you've reached a deadlock often it is best to appeal to a broader audience for input, by asking at the Village pump, posting a Wikiquette alert, or filing a Request for Comment. --Ideogram 19:22, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it a deadlock exactly; it would appear that we're moving towards a solution. Whether it'll be the solution or not remains to be seen but at least we're still talking. If it doesn't look like we're getting anywhere after another week or two of this (and no one answer seems demonstrably "right") I'll RfC the MedCab discussion and see if we can steer the two sides of the relevant WikiProject together again. Flakeloaf 21:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Muhammad/Mediation

This is only my second mediation, and it's proving much harder than my first. I was wondering if someone more experienced could help me, since I don't really know how to proceed. Thanks! · AndonicO Talk · Sign Here 18:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I think you need to take a more active role. When someone says something intemperate or inflammatory you need to get to their comment and ask for calm before other people respond to it. I don't know if you have time to "babysit" these people like that; maybe if you get one or more co-mediators it will work. --Ideogram 19:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Ideogram. I think I could find time. Thanks for the tip, but where do I proceed? Do I just let them discuss, or do I have a vote? It's a difficult case, and I'll soon have no idea on what to do next. I'd appreciate any other tips anyone would care to give me. Thanks. · AndonicO Talk · Sign Here 21:09, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Especially when there are a lot of participants saying a lot of different things (and sometimes repeating themselves) you need to be the one to focus and clarify the debate. You need to be able to respond immediately to things people say to emphasize the important points they are making and deprecate distractions. In order to do this you need to establish that you are fair and impartial and capable of understanding and explaining all views presented to you. If all the participants trust you you will be able to guide the debate, taking on each point one at a time.
You will need to get an overall sense of all the issues that each person wants to discuss. If you don't have a sense of that yet ask them to summarize their concerns for you. Then try to order the list in some sensible fashion, likely by importance, and go through the list. Sometimes you will need to say, "I understand what you are saying, but let's discuss that later." --Ideogram 21:26, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Thank you; I'll try to do that. · AndonicO Talk · Sign Here 21:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Durova/Community_enforced_mediation

This looks a tad like what people were talking about during wikimania? --Kim Bruning 00:41, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Interesting situation

So I invited Dmcevit (an arbitration committee member) to #wikipedia-medcab. He mentioned a situation he'd noticed here.

Worth brownie points to solve. Could some people come take a look, or is everyone really busy? --Kim Bruning 22:30, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll look into it. Geo. Talk to me 03:17, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Way to put your foot in it dude :-). Read before you write.
Folks, this was a tough one to start with, Geo's going to need backup here! --Kim Bruning 22:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't think I will need backup, yet :P Geo. Talk to me 18:58, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
This looks really nasty. Where are you discussing? --Kim Bruning 20:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Hopefully I can get the parties to sit down, discussion hopefully will take place on a article talk subpage. Geo. Talk to me 07:23, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
I have a subpage Talk:Indo-Aryan migration/chat2007 Geo. Talk to me 07:30, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Sadly a major party refused to come to the table. Geo. Talk to me 18:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
There's many ways to approach this. So the "inviting people to the table" didn't work, let's try the next approach! What's another tactic? :-) --Kim Bruning 05:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, an RfC has been filed on the user, mediation can't really occur without him contributing. Geo. Talk to me 02:13, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Introduction to mediation

/medintro <- I'll try to write something --19:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

as an example of how not to write :-/ --Kim Bruning 22:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Community enforced mediation

Since I've got six trainees and no actual cases yet, I've written to each of them suggesting they lend a hand here. Saw the notice that you're backlogged. Best wishes, DurovaCharge! 22:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! --Kim Bruning 22:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Instructions re informing the other parties

The current instructions imply that someone requesting mediation is just supposed to list the case here, and that the mediator will inform the other parties. However, at [1], someone was offended that they weren't informed that a mediation case was being requested. Mediation was requested; no mediator volunteered; and someone closed the mediation case on the grounds that no discussion was happening. But maybe if a mediator had volunteered, or if it had been announced that mediation was being requested and if discussion with mediation had been invited, then maybe discussion would have happened. Apparently the first that some involved parties heard about the mediation was this: [2] which is not very inviting.

So, maybe the instructions need to be modified either to (a) suggest to someone requesting mediation that they inform the other parties they're requesting mediation; (if they can do so civilly!!) or (b) instruct cabalists how to handle situations where there is a mediation request but no mediator yet (Do nothing? mediation request remains "secret"? Or inform parties that there is a mediation request but no volunteer mediator yet?) It doesn't make sense to start putting up notices on an article talk page about a case being closed if there haven't yet been any notices about the case being opened in the first place. Maybe the instructions for closing cases need to say not to inform anyone who wasn't informed of the case opening. Anyway, some re-thinking of the instructions to avoid the situation descibed above would be helpful. --Coppertwig 14:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this up. What you describe in the first paragraph was really an unpleasant experience! But to be honest, we have a much bigger problem: The vast majority of our cases (maybe as much as 99% - see #visiting after absence above) do not get resolved successfully. As long as we have such appalling results, we will always create hurt feelings.
There also seems to be a personality conflict between the mediator and one of the parties - to the extent that the mediator even opened an ANI case against the party (WP:ANI#User:Guettarda). While it is obvious that a mediator needs patience with both parties, we obviously can't write a rule for that!
Your case also illustrates the flip side of what's special about the concept of a mediation cabal: We don't want to impose any conditions on who can or can not be a mediator. While this allows us the freedom we need, it also means that anybody can act as a mediator, which includes ambitious people as well as people who have a bias for one side. That in turn means that parties are less likely to trust mediators, which leads to misunderstandings and hurt feelings, as in the case you cite. There are several ways around this:
  • If you rather work in an area where the environment (rules, organization) provides a basis for trust, then I strongly recommend joining the Mediation Committe.
  • Another option, which is what I did, is to stay in one particular area that constantly needs mediation, where people get to know you and you can buid up a reputation as being neutral. — Sebastian 17:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Before I was ever made aware of the issue, Ideogram already labelled me (and another editor) was "unwilling" to participate. Not only was that untrue (how can I be characterised as "unwilling" to participate in something I am unaware of), it also amounts to well poisoning. It's entirely beside the point that, rather than engaging in discussion Ideogram chose to reply to my request to remove the statement with a personally directed insult, which s/he followed up with threats. Obviously Tim wasn't the one at fault here - he was following the instructions. While it isn't the fault of the medcab that Ideogram's chosen way of "mediation" involved incivility, insults, personal attacks and threats, the point remains that the process cannot work if the other parties are kept in the dark, and then criticised for not participating in a process they are unaware of. Guettarda 19:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Guettarda of course holds the entire MedCab in total contempt, as seen here and here. --Ideogram 19:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm...why am I bringing this up here? Mostly because of this; prior to Keitei's comment I had pretty much written off the medcab as unfixable, since most of what I had observed was along the lines of the issue raised in that thread. Guettarda 20:25, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Did you read that message between the time you posted your comments above and now? --Ideogram 20:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I take it you missed Coppertwig's suggestion. Scroll up to the start of this section. Guettarda 20:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I take it you aren't going to answer my question. When exactly did you decide you wished to help fix MedCab? --Ideogram 20:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I am of course, always open to learning how to improve WP:MEDCAB. I'll mail Guettarda now. --Kim Bruning 22:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)