Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-01-09 Israeli-Palestinian conflict

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Comment 2 mediation scope 3 ArbCom -> M-E forum 3.1 Purpose

[edit] Comment

Use this page for comments. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 14:43, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] mediation scope

By the way, I don't actually feel that the article Israeli-Palestinian conflict is really the main issue at stake right now. However, it has the additional unique benefit of having a title which actually describes neatly what the focus is of the entire RFaR case which is currently getting underway. So by initating a MedCab case starting here, and drawing in some additional outside help, this seems like a useful place with which to start some additional positive efforts, to address the current range of disputes which will probably have to be addressed over time by ArbCiom, in the current case there. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 23:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

By the way, i just found the following statement at the MedCab page. So it looks like my idea turns out to have been right in line with established procedure all along. that seems interesting. thanks.

Special case: If the mediation concerns more than one article, put it first on the talk page that has the most general name and then copy the template to the other articles. If there is no article with a name that relates to the issue, you can change the name, but be sure to use a neutral name that all parties can agree with.

--Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 23:20, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] ArbCom -> M-E forum

The ArbCom will not solve anything. That is not possible because they refuse to handle content issues and the matter here gathers behaviour and content issues.
Currently, the only solution I would see is to have a special (unique) page where content issues related to the Israel/Palestine subject would be discussed by all people.

Global consensus could be found and all parties would be asked to enforce them in the name of the forum, whatever their personnal thoughts.

It would also be possible to "nominate" some moderators on this Middle-East forum.

Regards, Ceedjee (talk) 08:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe that some really serious editor conduct can be quite easily identified and the culprits named and shamed (and sanctioned). Quite serious problems may persist or re-emerge after this process, but the general atmosphere will be improved enormously. I'm looking forwards to bringing evidence for such serious misbehavior. PR^talk 09:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Ceedjee, just want to respond to say thanks for your note. As you probably already know, you and I are in total agreement on those points. Of course, I don't mean this as criticism of ArbCom, as you probably don't either; this is simply a reflection of how the process works. So I really agree with all the points you raised. PR, thanks for your comment as well. I hear the point you're raising, and it make sense. so thanks. By the way, I'm not planning to place myself in every discussion which may go on here, :-) but I did want to just respond briefly. Good to see some people adding their thoughts here. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 12:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

What exactly is supposed to be mediated here? And does it really make sense to have this going on at the same time as the arbitration? I understand that the ArbCom does not deal with content disputes, although in light of the statements on the arbitration page, it is difficult to see how the arbitration is going to proceed without at least some discussion of content disputes. There going to be at least some overlap. Also, in the past I have noticed that talk page activity tends to slow down or stop during an arbitration on that article. I wonder whether the same thing would happen here, with people tending to focus more on the arbitration and very little on this mediation. 6SJ7 (talk) 23:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi,

The last time I read the ArbCom page, there was an edit war to see Jayjg included or removed of the case.

I am sure it will be even less efficient as the one concerning the alleged apartheid drama.

Ceedjee (talk) 15:10, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

By the way, you're right; it is difficult to see how the ArbCom case will proceed without dealing with content disputes. however, there's just one problem; ArbCom does NOT deal with content disputes.:-) So as that fact becomes clear, we may need some alternative form of positive dispute resolution, as many intractable issues may soon arise and start being discussed, and may reach various states of immpasse. So i feel we will probably need this mediation sooner or later. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 14:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi 6SJ7. you raise some excellent points. Basically, this MEdCab case is here as a measure which was long overdue. I was not aware that such chronic and recurring issues had emerged with I-P conflict, as referenced by the ArbCom case. If that's the case, there should have been ongoing mediation.

Basically, you're correct, initially, while people are starting the ArbCom case, no one will pay attention to the MedCab case. Once people start to realize that ArbCom cannot resolve the many content disputes , they will probably look for more positive forms of dispute resolution.

Furthermore, in the Allegations of Apartheid case, at first no one sought mediation. However, when that arbcom case started to devolve into mass allegations, people started to drift back to the talk page, and eventually came up with resolutions themselves. the difference here is that there is not just one talk page for people to go back to. so this medcab case is an effort to provide one, if and when people decide they would like to utilize it.

It also provides a way for us to keep the mediators here apprised of new thoughts on this, and new developments. in the end, some of the mediators here will probably end up getting these matters, one way or another. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 14:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Purpose

To answer 6SJ7 : the purpose of this "forum" would be to set-up an unique room of discussions where all issues could be discussed. Ceedjee (talk) 16:22, 11 January 2008 (UTC)