User talk:SebastianHelm/MedCab

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for looking out for me with my user page. Although I'm still new to

Wikipedia, I'm not nearly as new to arbitration (mediation). Please correct me

if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that there are some people in the Wikipedia

world that would rather have edit wars instead of productive sessions with a

good-faith mediator.

Also, as an arbitrator, I'm am used to inviting the parties myself. In mediation

however, generally the parties agree in advance to mediation. In the case of

Sterling, User:Fahrenheit451 has clearly not contacted the parties in

advance of the mediation. As a mediator, how do you suggest I interpret this

trepidation exhibited by User:Fahrenheit451?

Thanks for your indulgence.

--Leonmon 06:36, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you're right about people and edit wars. It never occurred to me that

this would be significantly different from the outside world, but now that you

say it it makes sense. Here, they don't have to lose much, except for some

time. In the real world, people stand to lose money if they waste the chance

for mediation. Does that explain the difference?

Not inviting the other party is very common here, I would guess that's the

case in 75% of all mediations. There is some benefit to that, because it allows

the mediator sometimes to solve the problem even before involving the other

party. (This is e.g. often the case when the requesting party misunderstands

or isn't aware of a Wikipedia policy.) Since I am not a mediator in this case, let

me give you my impression: Fahrenheit451 was fairer in their

request than 90% of requesters. Because I did not want to come to an

unsuspecting user and ask them to join an outrageiously accusotory case, I

started using the discussion page for people's statements, and the project

page for my excerpts and proposals. See [[Wikipedia:Mediation

Cabal/Cases/2006-12-26 Decline of Buddhism in India]] for an example of

that. You may also find User:SebastianHelm/Mediation interesting,

although you'll probably laugh at my amateurish attempts at mediation.  :-)

— Sebastian 08:53, 15 November 2007

(UTC)

[edit] Comment on User:Leonmon

It appears that Leonmon abandoned mediation on

[[Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2007-11-

07_Sterling_Management_Systems]] three days ago and the mediation has

since broken down from disruptive comments from User:Misou and the

refusal of User:Ibeme to declare his relationship to the subject of the article

when a WP:COI situation was evident.--

Fahrenheit451 (talk)

19:37, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Leonmon's last note was "I will make another post with questions and

comments within the next couple days. (I apologize for the delay -- I've been

spending most of my time moving my office across town. We just finished

most of it Friday.)"[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%

3AMediation_Cabal%2FCases%2F2007-11-

07_Sterling_Management_Systems&diff=172224107&oldid=171982775]

Since then, they has only made one edit. Maybe ey's still

busy from the repercussions of this move and forgot to update that note. He

wrote "within the next couple days" just 4 days ago. It is not unusual that

people get caught up in other activities a bit longer than planned. Remember

that we're all volunteers here. Why don't you ask Leonmon on eir talk page or

by e-mail? I will also send some questions to you by e-mail. —

Sebastian 20:27, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I did send him an email yesterday and no response. --

Fahrenheit451 (talk)

22:14, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I see. This is not unusual either. Many people don't reply right away; often

they provide an e-mail account which they don't check from work. What I do

in such cases is alert them on their talk page about the mail. I'll do that for you

right now. — Sebastian 23:41, 21 November

2007 (UTC)

My apologies for the delay. My email went down and I unfortunately did not

receive email for the past couple of days. I'm definitely not asleep at the

switch as User:Fahrenheit451 would believe. This certainly is a case that

will undoubtedly require a significant amount of work. I suspect that

User:Fahrenheit451 is looking for someone to come in and quickly make a

decision as to who is right and who is wrong. My understanding is that as a

Wikimediator, I need to bring parties together. If all the parties were in the

same room, I suspect the first thing I would do is to separate them into

different rooms. I unfortunately don't have that luxury here. My first request

was a one of WP:CIV and WP:AGF. The second request is that all

responses on the mediation page are directed solely to the mediator and no

one else. This isn't the worse I've ever seen but it's definitely not the easiest

-- particularly given the forum. Hopefully, parties will respond over the holiday

weekend and I'll lay out my proposal for proceeding.

(Just a housekeeping issue: Would it be inappropriate to archive all of the

"Discussion" that has already occured on the mediation page in order to start

with at least a pseudo-clean slate?)

Regards, --Leonmon (talk) 05:22, 22

November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply! You are pretty free here - that's the nice thing about

MedCab as opposed to MedCom. You certainly can archive the discussion if

you feel it's helpful. Anither thing I often do is make it clear beforehand that

WP:RPA is in effect and then delete any personal attacks or off topic

remarks. See the blue box on top of WT:SLR for an example. These guys

are really a bunch of pots and kettles calling each other black! —

Sebastian 06:14, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. I archived the bulk of the mediation page this morning.

I laid out more of my expectations and I indicated that I would enlist your

assistance regarding WIKIhoops and WIKIpolicy interpretations if necessary.

I think things will be a little smoother going forward.  Again, I appreciate your

help. Have a good holidays!

Regards,
--Leonmon (talk) 20:35, 22

November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Termination of mediation

Sebastian, I think it best to terminate the Sterling Management Systems

mediation as it has gone sour. Stan En notified me that he will not participate

in it and I refuse for the reasons that we have previously discussed. Pull the

plug, please.--Fahrenheit451 ([[User

talk:Fahrenheit451|talk]]) 21:30, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Have you asked the mediator? — Sebastian

21:58, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, on his talk page.--Fahrenheit451 ([[User

talk:Fahrenheit451|talk]]) 23:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, let's see what ey says, then. —

Sebastian 01:37, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation Cabal

Hi. You suggested I could talk to you via email about the problems I had with

MedCab, wasting ten weeks etc.

That's ok with me, if you want to give me your email address, or do you want

me to just talk about it on your talk page? Either is ok with me. Thanks for

being interested.

Sardaka (talk) 12:18, 22 November

2007 (UTC)

Might as well go ahead and give you the outline.

I was having problems with an editor who had been following me around and

driving me crazy. It got to the point where I was always looking over my

shoulder and the only way to shake her off would be to start a new account

with a new name. Naturally, I didn't see why I should have to. I tried informal

things like AN/I and Village Pump, and was told to go to MedCab. You know

the rest. If you want all the gory details, just go to the MedCab link at the top

of my talk page.

I know for a fact that I'm not the only one who has had these problems with

this person, but the details are at MedCab. Thanks for taking an interest.

Sardaka (talk) 10:43, 23 November

2007 (UTC)

To e-mail me, please use the "E-mail this user" link at the bottom of this

page. Or do you have a particular reason not to use this link? —

Sebastian 17:27, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't email you at first. I hadn't used these email links before and

didn't realize they were there.

Sardaka (talk) 09:33, 24 November

2007 (UTC)

== Your crusade here:

Wikipedia_talk:Mediation_Cabal#MedCab_coordination_gone_wrong == Sebastian, the reasons why the mediation went bad have been repeatedly

explained to you. I think you are not solving anything, but rather stirring up a

matter that is best let go. I requested the mediation to resolve the bickering

that was going on in the Sterling Management Systems article.

User:Misou put repeated incivility and disruptive comments onto the

mediation page during Leonmon's absense. I find it completely

unacceptable to allow such policy violations in a mediation. Frankly, I have

found you very difficult to get to understand what I tell you. I think your

vendetta on Addhoc is just plain wrong targeting. Misou started the problem.

User:Misou is the correct target. If you still don't understand that, then I

suggest we part company now.--Fahrenheit451

(talk) 03:57, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your message, which reminds me that my motives aren’t as

obvious to others as they are to me.

My motivation for what I am doing here is to help people who are in conflict

situations. What I am getting out of this is experience that helps me grow.

Wikipedia is a good learning environment because it gives me the time to

think before I react; and because I can revisit the conversation later and see

how we reacted to each other.

I am very fortunate and grateful to have grown up in a healthy environment;

and by helping others in need I want to give back to the community.

This may sound too good to be true, especially to people who have made too

many bad experiences. I really feel for people who are so unfortunate as to

have grown up against a backdrop of distrust or even civil war. This is why I

spend more time on WP:SLR than on Mediation Cabal. I am sad that

many people grow up believing that vendetta can solve conflicts – of course it

doesn’t! There are much better techniques, such as [[nonviolent

communication]], which is one of the things I am learning here.

So, when I was offered the position of Mediation Cabal coordinator, I was

honored, but it also offered me a way to multiply my help by helping those

who help others: Mediators. This is why I take the duty of a Mediation Cabal

coordinator to help mediators so seriously, and this is why it is so important

for me that all Mediation Cabal coordinators commit to this principle. When a

Mediation Cabal coordinator insists on violating this principle, it is very, very

bad for Mediation Cabal. If we just let it pass then it will set a bad example,

and discourage good people from mediating. I need to insist on this in all

earnest. — Sebastian 07:57, 5 December

2007 (UTC)

Sebastian, if we don't move on, if you continue this inquest, I think that you

will set a bad example of yourself from the duress you subject participants

who leave a voluntary mediation to, or disagree with your views on what was

wrong with a mediation. I suggest that mediators be advised to not allow

Wikipedia policy violations in a mediation and direct restraining actions to the

violator(s), not those who are not violating. --

Fahrenheit451 (talk)

18:03, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

That's it now, F451. You know, pointing a finger at others leaves three

pointing back at you... You blew. Now stop accusing others for your own

misbehavior, thanks. Misou (talk) 22:25, 5

December 2007 (UTC)

Misou, looks like you are back at provocation again using scientology-speak

"blew". We don't buy that thought reform stuff here. Please take your

attempts at disruption off of Wikipedia.--Fahrenheit451

(talk) 02:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC)