Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Guerrilla Mediation Network

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep. Xoloz 15:16, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Guerrilla Mediation Network

Between the MedCom and the MedCab, we already have two dispute resolution processes (MedCab being informal as it is). This merely tries to add extra processes to informal mediation which is carried out on a day-to-day basis by users on their own. ^demon[yell at me] 13:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Note to closing admin: Also delete WP:GMN, WP:GUERRILLA {{Guerrilla-mediation-request}} if outcome is delete.
  • Delete ^demon[yell at me] 13:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Tenative Keep - If we're to have two, why not three? I don't see a principled or "public interest" argument being made (yet) here. --Improv 14:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Computerjoe's talk 16:53, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I have known requests to stay unaddressed for months at MedCom; while this doesn't necessarily work very well either, alternatives are good. Septentrionalis 22:49, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unless name is changed. Although I don't particularly like the name since it implies that this "network" is out to be one sided in its mediation attempts. The word guerrilla used as a noun means one who fights with force by sabatoge or harassment, and used as an adjective this literally means guerilla warfare or partisan forces. Mediators should in fact be impartial or bipartisan, not taking one side over the other. SynergeticMaggot 16:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Trying to consolidate/coordinate mediation frameworks on WP may or may not be a good idea, but let's try to discuss if and how that should be done rather than by deleting one of them. Martinp 22:01, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep; alternatives are definately good. --Nearly Headless Nick 12:35, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong and Speedy? Keep - Forum-shopping, common sense also dictates that it violates the spirit of WP:DP (See the part about not deleting community-consensus policy and guideline pages.) --Avillia (Avillia me!) 14:53, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Community consensus policy? It's merely a single new method of mediation, authored by (almost) one individual. It has a whopping 1 case in its queue. -^demon[yell at me] 21:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Yeah this isnt a policy and or guideline page or else it would have been closed already. SynergeticMaggot 01:30, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep at least for now. The Dispute Resolution Process needs all the help it can get. אמר Steve Caruso (desk/AMA) 18:09, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Processes are not decided on MFD, sorry. These pages are currently on standby for when the process is implemented. We're currently training some decent mediation capable people at mediation cabal, They will then hopefully be able to upgrade to or use in addition this more lightweight process at some stage. Currently dispute resolution is at an all time low, so we need faster, more elegant processes to deal with the load as efficiently as possible. Kim Bruning 22:43, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Abstain since I'm the one who created this. *sigh* If people want to delete it, at least please let me userfy it since we're currently trying to get together competent mediators in order to run it; the present state of mediation on WP seems to not really be functioning very well. Really what would be most helpful would be people chipping in on 1) mediating and 2) requesting mediation for suitable cases, as opposed to deletion and thus a fait accompli failure. Well, it was an attempt, but - hey - this is Wikipedia. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 23:16, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
    Meh, MfDs happen. It's going to be kept anyway, by the look of it. Will we be seeing you next week? :-) Kim Bruning 08:43, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.