Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Suggestions for mediators

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] template

I have removed this suggestion:

  1. Putting up an {{ActiveDiscussMC}} notice on the disputed page(s) can be helpful to alert everybody do the need to check the talk page, if the mediation is taking place there. This notice is especially useful when anonymous users are editing the page or a large number of users is potentially interested in the outcome.

because it is problematic. In particular, we in general do not like to clutter up article pages with templates -- especially templates like this one, made by a particular informal wikipedia group. Yes, it would be nice if we could put a big banner saying "see the talk page", but we have a small banner already: the "discuss" tab. When there are special things going on, we still don't like article templates: see, for example, {{Controversial}}. The only time a template should be used is when there is an explicit disagreement over the content of the article that can be named -- in which case it is likely that {{neutrality}} or whatever is already up there. Sdedeo (tips) 01:38, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I made that template because I have seen a surprising number of cases where one party of the dispute was anonymous or did not participate in the discussion on the talk page. The reason for a special mediation template is that {{dispute}} may have been shown on the page in question for a longer time and a new template that signifies a new approach is a better invitation to anonymous editors to join the discussion. As the template is unusual it also has a higher chance to spark interest. I see this as a viable approach to contact anonymous editors before using {{sprotect}}. I have to admit the approach seems to have failed on its first application (on the Stuyvesant High School page) --Fasten 12:54, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi Fasten -- the way to handle this IMO is to put polite requests in the edit summary directing people to the talk page. Editors familiar enough with wikipedia to know how to get into an edit war also know how to read the edit summaries on the history page. I'm going to go ahead and modify the template so that it is similar to {{Controversial}}; please revert my edits if you really feel that this template should go on article pages and we can discuss further. Sdedeo (tips) 21:22, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, I have no use for it the way it is now. It defeats the purpose it was made for. My reason for putting it on article pages was to invite inexperienced, anonymous editors to join a dispute instead of changing the article. That seems more polite than an {{sprotect}}. Do you actually think it is require on talk pages? On talk pages I usually make a header "Mediation" and people are bound to notice it when they are used to reading talk pages. --Fasten 14:56, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Made some changes

And annoted in the edit summary. The biggest change is that mediators don't so much advise as that they mediate agreement. :-)

Kim Bruning 01:06, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I changed the wording very slightly. "issues" sounds better than "things", etc ... --Fasten 14:57, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
It sounds better, abut means something else. I really mean things! :-) I should stop being so terse ^^;; Kim Bruning 15:29, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh dear, I might end up reverting entirely like this. Um, to prevent that, let's discuss the next line here:

  • If you say "we don't need to follow that here, but..." you suggest that it might be a good idea to follow that procedure anyway
  • If you say "we don't follow that here, but..." you suggest that it's probably a bad idea, but that it does have some saving graces.

I was definately aiming at the latter.

Why? The Mediation Cabal is entirely informal and by stating that the official mediation process is not followed here you are trying to introduce a rule. The wording that the official mediation process doesn't need to be followed doesn't try to impose restrictions on the reader, quite to the contrary, it stresses the liberty of the reader to follow the ideas of the official mediation process, if he or she chooses to. This being a list of suggestions and not a policy, not even an inofficial policy, the wording you suggest appears inadequate. --Fasten 14:13, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
<Grin> What a great argument. I am momentarily at loss as to how to respond to that, at least without getting my own ideals in a twist. I admit to being out-cabaled :) Cool. Kim Bruning 19:42, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Note that a lot of these things are probably my own fault for being too terse. :-/

Kim Bruning 15:36, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Case Closed

Case closed, mediators final response... That can be read a wrong way... hmmm... Kim Bruning 13:39, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

"We explicitly don't follow that here" again makes the same mistake: This document is not authoritative, it cannot use wording that implies authority without loosing credibility. I suggest "We don't follow that here explicitly". "Especially why you might prefer private dispute resolution to public dispute resolution." looks like a subordinate clause to me; why did you turn it into a sentence? --Fasten 14:07, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, to my ear "we don't follow that here explicitly" means "no, but implicitly we do", but that might be my interpretation.
What I'd like to express is that the mediation cabal was set up to avoid a large number of (precieved) errors that were made in the mediation committee. If it had not been, it would have failed in the same manner. So what I want to express is that you should take extreme care not to get mired by the process described in that document, because it took so much darn trouble to figure out how to avoid it in the first place. <scratches head> Am I making any sense? Kim Bruning 18:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
I rephrased that to "There is no need to follow that here ..." --Fasten 11:05, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 :-) Kim Bruning 11:21, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Oops, that appears to be very close to the original wording. --Fasten 17:34, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Closing cases

Should cases that are inappropriate for medcab be closed and the users contacted about why it was closed with some suggestions? Or should they be put to open, the users given warning that it does not seem appropriate (along with what does seem like appropriate avenues) to see if the involved users still want mediation or the requesting party restates the case? Vassyana 13:31, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

We often receive requests that are inappropriate for MedCab. These are usually from new users who do not know how Wikipedia works or what dispute resolution options are available.
Generally a MedCab request should be viewed as a general request for help, and if the request is not appropriate for MedCab you should try to point the requestor in the right direction.
Some typical situations:
  • No discussion, only edit-warring
Advise requestor that they must start a discussion before mediation can occur. Consider requesting page protection to stop the edit war.
  • Requestor needs an outside opinion.
You can direct them to WP:3O. I also have some boilerplate text that I often insert:

You may wish to appeal to a broader community for input by asking at the Village pump, posting a Wikiquette alert, or filing a Request for Comment.

  • One or more parties (usually the requestor) does not understand Wikipedia policy, such as WP:NPOV, WP:RS, or WP:EL.
Explain it to them.
  • Failure to assume good faith.
Advise all parties to WP:AGF. If they cannot AGF, the mediation will fail.
  • Actual bad faith.
Directly accusing a party of bad faith is a judgement call and can be seen as a violation of neutrality. Direct violations such as vandalism and personal attacks can be brought to the attention of administrators, but there are many sneaky forms of bad faith. In these instances it is usually best to close the mediation and refer the parties to arbitration.

--Ideogram 17:15, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] recent edit

Please note that we usually recommend that discussion take place on the article talk page, in which case placing the template there as well is redundant. Note that I do not necessarily believe we should not use the template, but this is one possible objection you should be aware of. --Ideogram 09:58, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the heads up. I am taking that into consideration and chaning my edit to reflect your concerns. Vassyana 10:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC)