Wikipedia talk:Mediation Committee/Archive 4

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.

Contents

Lack of clarity

Here it states to add your name to the bottom of nominations, while here it states the opposite. I guess there must have been a change at some point; but the article wasn't changed accordingly. Computerjoe's talk 19:26, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Updated; I made it so that both say "bottom". Someone else fix this if it's wrong. Don't worry about fixing noms that are already there, though. Ral315 (talk) 20:46, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I had updated it to say top, because I feel adding new matters to the top of the page (like we do on RfM, RfAr, and RFA) makes it easier to spot new nominations; if you know you've commented on X, and X is still at the top of the list, you can stop there, rather than scrolling all the way to the bottom of the page, especially if the page is long and slow to load (like AN/ANI or RFA). I absolutely hate to sit and wait two or three mintues for a single page to load, only to find there has been no change, and I've wasted my time; ditto when I have twenty such pages to look at (and hence, lose an hour in the process). Essjay Talk • Contact 10:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

By all means, change them back then, if it hasn't been done already. Ral315 (talk) 22:30, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, that's just my preference; if others prefer the bottom, that's what we should do...A quick poll, perhaps? Mediators: Which do you perfer, new at the top or bottom?

Top. Essjay Talk • Contact 05:30, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Nominations Backlog

I would appreciate it if everyone could make a statement for the current 3 nominations. That way consensus can be gained ASAP. Computerjoe's talk 18:42, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Jolly good point Computerjoe. It would certainly be handy to try and get some of the community's view on the nominations. --Wisden17 19:40, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
WP:CBB? Computerjoe's talk 20:25, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Interesting idea, putting it on Comunity Portal/Bulletin Board. Personally I'd value the views of those currently on the Committee, and say on the Arbitration Committee, more than those of the Community as a whole, due to the nature of what the Committee's role is, which is distinct, say from the nature of RfA discussions. --Wisden17 23:28, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Additions to the committee are an internal decision, not a community one; we invite the community to comment, but it is the "votes" from the committee members that determine who is and who is not accepted for the Committee, with the option to veto any candidate being reserved to Jimbo. Additionally, any candidate that receives two opposes from within the committee is excluded. There is currently not a case backlog, and no need to rush to add new mediators; the committee takes their time in making these decisions, and as patience is a very important characteristic in a mediator, we expect that candidates will exhibit it during thier nominations. Essjay Talk • Contact 05:28, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
I understand, though, in my view one of the candidates not having any comittee votes, con sidering it's been up since 19th March, shows inactivity. Computerjoe's talk 08:40, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Nominations can, and historically often have, taken a long time; a month could be considered quite short. In the past, most of the candidates have been fairly well known to the committee members; speaking for myself, I can say that many of the new candidates are completely unknown to me, which makes it far more difficult to make a call on whether they would be a good mediator. As an official committee, we take additions very seriously, and can be slow to act on them; with that said, yes, I'd like to see a few more signs of life. But please be patient with the committee members, they're doing their best. Essjay Talk • Contact 09:27, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Very well. Computerjoe's talk 09:28, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

are non admins allow to join the mediation commitee??

are non admins allow to join the mediation commitee??--Freestyle.king 04:24, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes. The only requirement to join the committee is to be accepted by the Committee; with that said, several members believe that adminship is an important indicator of community trust, and are reluctant to support non-admins. (Obviously, they make exceptions where they feel it is necessitated.) Each member is able to make his or her own standard to guide his or her votes. Essjay Talk • Contact 05:35, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Transclusion

Does anybody have objection to switching from direct nominations on the MC page to transcluded subpages? I'm finding that it is very unweildly to work with the page, with several nominations stacked up; I think it would be easier to put them on subpages, and then transclude them in, as is done at RfA. If there are no serious objections from within the committee, I'll switch it out in the next couple of days. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 07:10, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Seems a sensible idea, as the number of nominations does seem to be increasing somewhat. --Wisden17 13:28, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Don't see anything wrong with it. Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:39, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I've moved the current nominations to subpages, and for consistency, moved all the old nominations to subpages, so we don't have two separate schemes for archiving. The new archive can be found at Wikipedia:Mediation Committee/Nominations. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 04:52, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Toe-in-the-water

I've been finding myself doing a fair bit of mediation via e-mail, and in a few cases on my talk page. I'm interested in doing it in a more "official" capacity, but given that I've got one long-standing and as yet unresolved ongoing public conflict, I'm wondering if a nomination would be a waste of everyone's time? - brenneman {L} 02:50, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

The best idea would, would be to put yourself up for nomination if you feel that this ongoing dispute can be explained from your point of view to the satisfaction of the MedCom members. As the saying goes 'suck it and see', the only way you'll find out the opinion of MedCom members is to add a nomination. --Wisden17 12:38, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

The main criteria that Committee memebers look for, at least in the nominations I have been a part of, is community trust. Mediator is a position that requires strong community trust, as the community is placing it's faith in you to see that serious disputes are resolved without escalation. While no mediator should ever feel responsible for the escalation of a case, we all go in to each case with the realization that if our efforts fail, Arbitration is the next step, and the parties may suffer adverse consequences. The community trusts us to be a floodgate of sorts, to prevent the disputes that are brought to us from finding thier way to arbitration.

If you believe that you hold the community's trust, that you are known within the community as possessing exemplary diplomatic skills and recognized as a stable, dependible, and neutral party in dispute resolution, then yes, you should consider the Mediation Committee. If you cannot honestly say you fit that description, then no, Mediation is not the right place, as our job is always, without deviation, to be the recognized and official source of neutral and trusted formal dispute resolution. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 13:24, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Chairman

I received an email earlier this month from a Committee member, noting that it has been several months (February) since I took over as chair, and that the Committee page indicates the chair position rotates every few months; it was suggested that perhaps it was time for me to step aside and let someone else take over.

I've held off on saying anything because I had an unfinished task I wanted to see through; I was waiting for the coding of MediationBot to finish, but it appears that will not happen, as it's been two months since I arranged to have it coded, and a month since I received an update. As such, I see no reason to delay any further.

I have always served at the pleasure of the Committee, and have done what I could to streamline the mediation process and keep the Committee running. If there is dissatisfaction with my performance within the Committee, then I should be replaced. If there is a desire on the part of someone else to take on the job, then they should have the opportunity. As such, I think it best to open a discussion, either here or on the mailing list (one or the other is best, I think) of whether a new chair is needed, and if so, who would like the position.

My thanks for the time I've been allowed to serve. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 03:06, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I would probably say that the mailing list is the best place to discuss this. There is always the option of there being Co-Chair, which may be a better way to go. I'm personally not fussed at the moment, although I think that we could perhaps look at a way of creating some formalised training for potential mediators. I might make a start on a proposed structure and submit it to current Committee Members. I'd welcome other members thoughts and views, although again the mailing list may be the better avenue for this.--Wisden17 14:53, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Moved to the mailing list. Ral315 (talk) 03:39, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Just an explanitory note, in case anyone is scratching their head: I've been re-elected (or something similar) to the position of Chairman. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 03:03, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

No complaints here, thought you were doing a fantastic job anyway :) -^demon[yell at me][ubx_war_sux] /14:14, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Heads up on delisting

Guys, just a heads-up on the delistings and the template for removals; it's intended to be the five tilde date signature, rather than the three tilde username signature, so that we know how long it's been delisted and can remove the template after a suitable time. If we want to use username signatures, I suggest the regular four tildes, so we will still have the timestamp. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 08:45, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

No worries. I wasn't entirely sure. -^demon[yell at me][ubx_war_sux] /13:59, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

My nomination

I recently opted for membership on the committee sometime last month. While my nomination was proceeding favorably, I had to leave WP for a time. I'm back now, and would like my nomination to be reinstated. I was wondering, however, how the process would proceed? Would it be restarted, or would the nomination simply be put back on the page? (nomination) Orane (talk • cont.) 02:59, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, though I'm no longer the chair, you should just stick it back on the page. Take out the note about it being closed and let it run. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 06:23, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Request for withdrawal

I, False Prophet, request my self nomination to be withdrawn, as I realize that I am not ready to be a mediator yet.False Prophet 21:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll close it out. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 02:58, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Falun Gong

I don't have a horse in this race, I only wanted to put up a photograph. But I've noticed that these series of articles related to Falun Gong have languished in the mediation process. How long does it typically take to mediate, and what is the usual protocol? My only concern is that these issues seem to languish without resolution, which kind of hurts our site. Not a criticism, just a concern....--DavidShankBone 20:46, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Mediation request

I hope I'm in the right place. I would like to request mediation on the Paul Weyrich biography, as I have asked several users to work with me to devise agreeable language, and to date it's turned into an all-out edit war. One that I want to end. They refuse to dialogue, and they keep interjecting what I view as a malicious left-wing POV into the article.

In response to a 1999 controversy covered by the press concerning a group of Wiccans in the United States military who were holding religious rituals and services on the grounds of the bases they were assigned to, Weyrich sought to exempt Wiccans from the Free Exercise Clause of the First_Amendment and bar them from serving the military altogether. Weyrich, as president of the Free Congress Foundation, led a coalition of ten religious right organizations that attempted a Christian boycott on joining the military until all Wiccans were removed from the services, saying:

"The official approval of satanism and witchcraft by the Army is a direct assault on the Christian faith that generations of American soldiers have fought and died for," Paul Weyrich added. "If the Army wants witches and satanists in its ranks, then it can do it without Christians in those ranks. It's time for the Christians in this country to put a stop to this kind of nonsense. A Christian recruiting strike will compel the Army to think seriously about what it is doing."[1]

According to TheocracyWatch and the Anti-Defamation League both Weyrich and his Free Congress Foundation are both closely associated with Dominionism.[2][3] TheocracyWatch lists both as leading examples of "dominionism in action," citing "a manifesto from Paul Weyrich's Free Congress Foundation," The Integration of Theory and Practice: A Program for the New Traditionalist Movement[4], "illuminates the tactics of the dominionist movement."[2] TheocracyWatch, which calls it "Paul Weyrich's Training Manual," and others consider this manifesto a virtual playbook for how the theocratic right in American politics can get and keep power.[5] The Anti-Defamation League identifies Weyrich and the Free Congress Foundation as part of an alliance of more than 50 of the most prominent conservative Christian leaders and organizations which threaten the separation of church and state. [3] Weyrich has rejected allegations that he advocates theocracy saying, "This statement is breathtaking in its bigotry"[6] and dismisses the claim that the Christian right wishes to transform America into a theocracy.[7]

This is the offending language that I believe is a straw man that doesn't accurately or fairly represent Mr. Weyrich's views. I have known him personally for over 5 years, and know from countless discussions that he doesn't believe in Dominionism because the Calvinist underpinnings of its theology is antithetical to his Eastern Christian theological training. Also the other participants keep deleting a section where Mr. Weyrich is quoted and sourced as saying that he would not be part of an Iran-style theocracy in America.
I want this to be fair, and for TheocracyWatch and ADL's opinions to be stated as such, not represented as hard facts, when the underlying arguments on their websites are straw men.

--Pravknight 22:41, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Is anyone home?

There has been some discussion here and here that the Mediation Committee is not mediating very effectively. Anyone care to comment? Catchpole 17:59, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

There have been responses there already. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 02:45, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

MediationBot

The message it places should not have a copy to Essjay's talk page as he is infactive. It should be a link to another user's talk page or here. Cbrown1023 04:04, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment; I'll try and dig around to see who else can access the bot's account and/or modify the code. Flcelloguy (A note?) 02:46, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
On this note, is there any way we can run the bot? Quite a bit of archiving work needs doing. -^demon[yell at me] 03:28, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps some guy called Essjay could get it back up and running...I'll take this as a sign I should kick it back into life (the toolserver changeover killed it, not me). Essjay (Talk) 04:53, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Essjay, thank you so much. Trying to manually do what MediationBot did automatically has been quite a tiresome chore. You might want to run through some of the things I've done recently, just to make sure they've all been done right, and don't make a mess of things when the bot begins running again -^demon[yell at me] 05:16, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, thank you and welcome back again, Essjay. Thanks for your effort as well, ^demon, it didn't go unnoticed. Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:19, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

With great thanks to Tangotango for figuring out where the glitch was in getting it up and running, I've gotten it going again. Let me know if anyone notices it acting up. Essjay (Talk) 20:38, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Mediation notifications

I've gotten three notifications on my talk page about the same RfM from MediationBot. Is there something wrong with it? —ShadowHalo 12:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Ditto for the same RfM. I fell like its stalking me! Robots gone wild!! --sony-youthtalk 21:43, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I think it was a problem with the category on the page not being removed; it caused the bot to think the case was still active. Essjay (Talk) 22:43, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

The chinese wikipedia problem - the Chinese communist spies

It is a known fact that China blocked its people's access to wikipedia. however, i checked the chinese page, they have total of 29 moderators that are in China! 6 from beijing, 6 from guangzhou, 6 from shanghai, etc. There are more moderators from China than from any other parts of the world. however, if the chinese are blocked from getting on here, how can those Chinese moderators still have time and resources to moderate the chinese wikipedia? isn't that odd? I highly suspect that most of the chinese mainland moderators are spies sent by the Chinese communists.

i am not crazy, or delusional. however, think about it, the chinese have to use special programs, proxy servers in order to get on this page. there are 13 billion chinese, how many of them can actually get on here easily? so how is that possibley there are so many mainland chinese moderators?!

The reason that i am suspecting is because of what happened to me recently. i tried to edit the page for the "peopel's republic of china". even today, that article does not have a single word about human rights and falun gong. i added those two items, immediatly a mainland chinese moderator deleted my contribution, then put that article into protection. i have added many similar contents in other articles. most of them have been deleted by those mainland chinese moderators.

when i tried to voice my suspision and my comments on those community forums, those moderators immediatly deleted them. then they banned me , accused me doing "vandalism?!"

with 29 chinese mainlander moderators, that site is basically controlled by the chinese spies sent by the communist party. they do not allow people to add anything that are bad about the chinese communist party. so here i am, I don't know if this is the proper place to voice my opinion. i seriously think that someone should take a look into this matter. SummerThunder 08:30, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think this is the right place for such a concern. The MedCom does not have any kind of compulsory authority, so in my opinion they could do nothing except talk to other people. If and only if the English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee has power over other Wikipedias (I'm not sure about that), you could place your concerns there. However, if (as I suspect), the Wikipedias are quasi-autonomous, the English ArbCom would not be able to help you. I see you don't want to put this (or you already have and you got ignored or worse) in the Chinese Wikipedia structure, so the only way left is appealing to the Wikimedia Foundation - or so I think, I'm no wikiattorney. Habbit 10:53, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Habbit is correct, this is the incorrect forum to bring up such things. You're best contacting the Wikimedia Foundation.
Regards, ^demon[omg plz] 02:56, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

WHO'S IN CHARGE OF WIKI? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Yrgh (talk • contribs) 21:55, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Day Awards

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 19:56, 30 December 2006 (UTC)