" 

  

  
 == Interac (Japan) == 

 Hi Silk Tork, 

 You came by Interac (Japan) in May and added an unbalanced tag.  I edited a portion of the imbalanced material out, but it seems that a couple edits were made on 8/23 and 8/30 that reverted and further expanded some of the imbalanced material.   

 Could you come back and have a look at it again?  I'm afraid that the situation with this page has been going on for a long time and it looks like it might need more regular admin attention.  Thanks.   

 :I will take a look later. ' '  

 ::I have removed the contentious section, and advised the contributor to discuss the matter on the talkpage. I will watch the article and talkpage and assist in any discussion to find an appropriate solution. ' '  

 :::Thanks for your attention.  I will work on editing the rest of the page for accuracy and current content.   

 == Mediation/Moderated discussion == 

 I'm interested in exploring improvements to our consensus seeking processes, particularly in the case of ""larger"" issues (e.g infoboxes) where traditional measures have failed. My very limited view of how this would be organized includes structured or moderated discussions as an important step. I see that we have such a concept, documented at places such as Mediation and Mediation_Committee/Policy. I have some questions, but I'll read through some of the material, to see if I can answer my own questions. However, I do have two specific questions: 
 * I thought I would start by reviewing some prior cases. I clicked on ""Cases"", which brought me to Requests for mediation/Tasks. I expected to see an archive of past cases. Is there one? 
 * I see that you conducted a Moderated discussion. Is this a mediation, subject to the Mediation Policy, or something else? I was expecting to see an initial specification of the rules for the discussion, but did not find them. I thought perhaps they were implicit, if this is a mediation and can refer to relevant Mediation pages, but at the moment, I am unclear about the status of the moderated discussion.  

 ::There are various types of dispute discussion. They occur informally every day on the talkpages of articles and/or users and/or WikiProjects. In addition there are organised informal discussions, such as Wikipedia:Third opinion and Wikipedia:Requests for comment. The only formal discussion venue for content matters is Wikipedia:Mediation Committee. However, if the community decides that a RfC is going to be formal, then they can do that. And they can do that without looking to ArbCom for authority. Usually when the community decides that a discussion is going to be formal, they will appoint three admins to close the discussion.  
 ::I have not to my knowledge used the Mediation Committee, either to seek or provide assistance. Though I did help out with the informal mediation process before it was closed in favour of Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard.  
 ::As regards the moderated discussion - it was just that. It was a discussion which I moderated. It was not mediation - it was an attempt to allow the participants to talk together without people becoming abusive or dominating the discussion. It developed its own rules as it went along, and I became much more involved that I had anticipated. While it did not achieve what I had hoped (a neutral, non-abusive consensus seeking forum for those wishing to improve the article), some progress on the article was made. That it was conducted by a Committee member during an active ArbCom case involving the contributors, was part of the reason it failed. But I thought it was worth an attempt to resolve the conflict directly. While I didn't enjoy the experience, it did remind me that I am probably more geared up to mediation of content than arbitration of behaviour.