Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Archive/1

message: Is this the "official" mediation/arbitration committee/grouping - or something different? Secretlondon 15:03, Jan 15, 2004 (UTC)
::kinda both, I made it, and I'm not on the committe.JackLynch 10:08, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Whats this?

message: I intended to place myself on the list as an arbitrator, since I'm not on the official Wikipedia:Mediation Committee (yet, I'm trying!). But if that term already has some specific status (where can I learn more about that?) perhaps I should create a seperate title/catagory for myself, and list all the Mediation comittee members here as mediators? Also, I 100% agree w all mediation being done OFF this page, thats how I ment for it to have been set up. I think some mention of that other than "make your complaint in as few words as possible" might be a good idea tho... JackLynch
:There's a list of arbitrators at Wikipedia talk:Mediation and Arbitration (proposal). Angela. 22:20, Jan 15, 2004 (UTC)
Hi Jack. A list of current arbitrators is available at Wikipedia:Arbitrators. We're not currently recruiting, but if we decide that we need more members, we'll be sure to let people know. In any case, there are plans to have some new arbitrators elected at the end of this year. Martin 20:09, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mediation/arbitration 

message: Jack wrote that "I am simply attempting to fulfil the formalities of the conflict resoloution process so that I can seek binding arbitration". Just to clarify one point: the arbitration committee has yet to decide the extent to which it will interact with the mediation process. We're aware of a range of opinions on the subject, and will be carefully discussing the matter in due course. Martin 20:15, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: yeah, I've noticed. Everythings up in the air... :( Lets hope it lands nicely! Jack 21:47, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interaction with arbitration 

message: Does one place mediation requests at the top or bottom of the existing list?  This should be stated in the introduction, right before the list. Kevin Baas 23:15, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Placement of new requests 

message: The What happens if mediation fails ? sections needs updating now that Jimbo is out of the loop... Martin 00:40, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Arbitration 

message: Whats up with all the text on this page, which should be reserved for comments. There are like four or 5 mediation pages - should they not be reintegrated, sorted, refactored and condensed? -SV 05:14, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Indicia 

message: I've been inactive for a while, but now hope to get involved again.  I hope that's OK with everyone.  I won't look at any of the older cases on this page - I've been to far away to assess them properly or know where they stand - but I'll try to be involved in some newer cases as they arrive.  -- sannse (talk) 20:07, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Sannse

message: It's like they've all vanished since the conclusion of the arbcom election. Hopefully we'll get some new mediators who were formerly arbcom candidates in soon. Johnleemk | Talk 07:18, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: There are a number of mediation committee candidates. I would suggest you provide comment regarding their suitability, and suggesting additional candidates, to help out with the current shortage of MC member! - Amgine 19:28, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: And don't forget it is the holiday season; many of us have been kept from Wikipedia due to Real Life obligations. Unfortunately, this fact is abused by some to get their way. :( -- llywrch 17:46, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: Please keep in mind that we members of the Mediation Committee are volunteers, just like everyone else; in my own case, I haven't had the time to take on more than a few requests for many months. Also keep in mind that there is no formal committee; rather it's a list of people who have volunteered to help facilitate communication between individuals. Therefore, if you have a mediation request submitted, & feel a specific mediator would be a good fit to your situation, feel free to contact that Mediator directly. As with volunteers everywhere, a kind word of appreciation keeps people willing to volunteer their time. -- llywrch 19:35, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Forgive me if the message was too hard. I'm an advocate in a very big and hard case where a quick solution will make this not going to arbitration. --Neigel von Teighen 17:40, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: As I said, if the case is important (& it sounds as if it is), actively try to reach the Mediators directly, rather than passively wait for attention. Right now our chair, Bcorr, is unreachable because of the holidays, so that would be the best way to get attention swiftly -- which is admittedly one of the weaknesses in our current process. (If it is complex, you probably don't want my help in the matter -- I can explain offline.) -- llywrch 18:20, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Are there any active mediators currently? 

message: I repeat for the third time that someone responsible should remove any posts made by chriso on the project page at  [this section] the project page says: "Please do not edit this page directly if you are not a participant in a case. Also, please do not remove content or move sections to separate pages if you are not a member of the Mediation Committee. Relevant comments may be left on the Talk page, and will be read in full." It says someting similar on pages like the Arbitration page. If a user broke the rules and added such stuff to the Arbitration page it would be moved and they might be blocked. Why is he above the rules please?WikiUser 19:42, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Request to Admins

message: Dear Wikipedia mediation committee members,
I have just recently posted a request for mediation regarding the dispute over the content of the Nagorno-Karabakh page between myself and User:Rovoam. This dispute is quickly escalating and now turned into a new revert war. I am tired of endless discussions in Wikipedia and I am tired of constantly responding to Rovoam's extremely biased nationalistic arguments, exposing his speculations and manipulations with the facts. I cannot stop Rovoam from unilateral changes, and at the same time, I cannot retreat because, in doing so I would betray my principles and the very reason why I am staying here in Wikipedia. In short, I ask for your help. Please, do something to solve this vicious circle of reverts and counterreverts. I would appreciate any advice from you on how I should proceed further and deal with this problem. Thanks in advance!--Tabib 10:10, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Tabib, you have called me a nationalist. Is this your own NPOV? I would like you to prove this before we can discuss other subjects. And if you fail to do so, I would like you to apologize first, before we continue our dispute. Another option would be to meet face to face to resolve our conflict in court house. Rovoam 00:23, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Rovoam, please be aware of the Wikipedia policy Wikipedia:No legal threats.  I hope that both of you can set aside any insults and anger and try to mediate peacefully together.  I have put in a request to the WP:AMA to have advocates contact you both to offer help in understanding dispute resolution at Wikipedia -- you aren't forced to take their assistance, but I believe it might be helpful in this case.  Best of luck to both of you. Jwrosenzweig 00:35, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Nagorno-Karabakh]]: Need HELP to solve the dispute 

message: i waited 10 days for mediation that did not appear. Now i am being hassled again see javier solana on this project page, and I do not want to wait 10 more days to get nothing. At the moment, from what I can see, there is no mediation here. please treat my case with urgency, and remeber I have already waited 10 days for a response. PLEASE! --SqueakBox 16:57, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
:I'm sorry we didn't respond sooner...though I'll point out to you that on the 24th you left a note here saying that everything was fine and we didn't need to worry about mediation.  I'll attend to your request later today as soon as I get more than the 3 minutes I currently have.  Sorry about the delay, Jwrosenzweig 16:05, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Mediation doesn't exist here

message: I've removed a huge number of cases from this page--they're in the page history, and I have them copied on a document on my computer.  Should I really list them all as we have been doing?  I fear that list idea isn't very workable.  And in the long run, should we be going to sub pages so that someone doesn't have to keep cleaning this page?  Any ideas are welcome...and if I should list them all and dump them in the archive, I'll do that.  I just want to talk about efficient solutions, if we can come up with a better one than we currently have. Jwrosenzweig 16:05, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sub-pages as on the VfD page would probably be best in my view. Jayjg (talk) 19:00, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Archiving

message: Template:Rfmf for answering requests. Syntax  where "target" is the appropriate header on WP:RFM, and "name" is your plain username. -SV|t 22:50, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notices 

message: I'm wary of editing the project page, given the stern warnings at the top of it, but wouldn't it be better to list current requests under a heading "==Current requests for mediation==" at the top? That would make the contents list flow much more naturally than it does at the moment... Grutness...wha? 06:03, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Headings 

message: MGM has agreed to join the Mediation Committee and will serve as chairman, assisted by me. The chair will check the RFM page at least once a day!! -- Uncle Ed (talk) 21:09, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
:Thank you.  There was a lengthy delay in the RFM for Terri Schiavo due to my failure to see the instruction to contact a mediator, in addition to posting.  I'm sure this change will help others.--ghost 14:45, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Mediators, new chairman, faster service 

message: I put the RFC on Pakistan here rather than Request for Comments, so I have moved the section there, sorry about the mistake. --Ragib 07:20, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Corrected mistake 

message: I would like to streamline the page and the process as follows:
*Those seeking a paper trail to "prove that they dotted all the I's" along the path to winning a "Gotcha" game need not apply. You want a ruling from the arbcom? Just go there directly, and don't bother us. We're busy, just like you are.
*Any two people who genuinely believe in the mission of Wikipedia and want to help one another create the world's best encyclopedia are welcome to ask for Mediation here.
*Post your name and problem below.
You want something done? Ask a busy person. I got no time for whiners and gamesters. But for people of good faith, I got all the time in the world. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 14:14, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
: Does Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal cover your bases? If not, BE BOLD and edit, I trust you :-) Kim Bruning 14:25, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Major proposed changes to Mediation procedures

message: Request for mediation on changes to article 2003 Invasion of Iraq pookster11 03:16, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for mediation

message: There's a huge backlog of requests. Would it help get things moving if we indicated which requests are being looked at, which have been accepted / started / completed / abandoned, etc.? -- Uncle Ed (talk) June 30, 2005 01:58 (UTC)
: I just archived all of May --its almost July, AFAIK. It might be a good idea to make it policy to remove each completed entry --for example the Weblog request was answered and dealt with by MGM. (Yes, I got your email, Ed. Im curious what others think.) -SV|t 1 July 2005 00:42 (UTC)
Thanks, Steve. How about a re-organization? I'd like to create new headings, e.g.,
*New requests
*Sign-up / Need Mediator
*In progress
*Recently completed
And maybe another heading for
*Cancelled
**Withdrawn
**No sign-up
**No mediator available
I want new requests to go on top, where it's easy for users to place them. And I want people to see what progress or lack of progress we make.
We're here to help. -- Uncle Ed (talk) July 5, 2005 15:30 (UTC)
: I usually like your suggestions Ed, but Im not sure more process is going in the right direction. Its also late, and Im not digesting all of what you wrote. But let me get this out: Certainly more interaction is a good thing. I think also this notion of choosing a mediatior slows things down. The head mediator should simply appoint one of us, even over user objections. If things dont seem to be working out, then someone else can go in. At least then theres something goin on right away, and the tasks of coordination and mediation are separated. Maybe this would even draw back inactives, who knows. SinReg, SV|t 8 July 2005 07:15 (UTC)
::Good idea, Steve. You seem to have picked up my <||>smooth<||> vibe somewhere along the line. Okay, as acting head (while Mgm catches up), I will simply appoint Mediators. Let 'em squawk if they don't like it, eh? Uncle Ed July 8, 2005 16:00 (UTC)
::: (((the soothing vibe is indeed contagious))) (Or else a symptom of aging). ;) I deeply endorse your assigning of mediating mediators, be they squawkers or not. :) (Though we should update the policy to reflect our ...smooth... unilaterialism.) Sinreg -SV|t 07:59, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: PS. Would it make sense to dispense with the "both parties request" formality? Its really kind of a holdover from the excessive notion that MC needed to be excessively distinguished from AC. The ACs role is fairly well defined, and limited, leading it to be rather functional, and less overextended. Theres no comparison nor confusion IMHO, hence a little "proactive" responsiveness to RFM would be good. ? -sr, SV|t 08:19, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Backlog 

message: Reorganized WP:RFM, WPT:RFM, WP:RFM/header, MedComOpenTasks, :Category:Wikipedia mediation, Template:mip (in progress), Template:rfm (for requests). 
* Problem with WP:RFM TOC comes from the MedcomOpenTasks template - needs fix). Fixed - was the id=toc leftover from the earlier MedCom template. Changed to id=medcom
* CAT:WPM (and two subcats mip and rfm) need some use, but using them would mean forking this "official" page.
* Sorting RFM by date wasnt working, and Im glad its changed. Likewise for Tem:MedCom...
More later. Tired of pixels. -SV|t 19:19, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reorganization 

message: Proposed: 
# The use of Category tags to list RFM cases. Two tags, rfm and mip are used -- the first ones syntax is rfm|title, and the second is mip|mediator, once a mediator is chosen.
# The removal of all RFM section comments to relevant article talk, immediately after mediation begins. -SV|t 18:45, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two proposed changes 

message: you could just ban everyone who shows a second grade reading level or lower, that should take care of most republicans, sockpuppets, and flamers, then we wouldn't need such a page--172.128.124.231 21:02, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: suggestion

message: I was wondering what the differences are between RFM and TINMC, and why the two shouldn't be combined into a central system? It should be easier particularly on the newbies if there was no confusion. Radiant_>|< 18:34, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
:I think that TINMC is meant to be less formal and less structured than RFM.  I personally think that the formality of RFM is one of its weaknesses, but others may disagree.  The two systems should only be merged if the informality of TINMC is used, because there does need to be an informal system.  Robert McClenon 13:35, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two systems? 

message: Ed, I'm curious why my RFM was moved to my talk page and not also to the other party's page. Thanks. Maurreen (talk) 00:03, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Moving RFM

message: (Comments moved from main page.)
** Just checking:  this is the same RfC that you've said you're no longer reading, right?  Nandesuka 04:01, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Radiant and Tony Sidaway

message: I would like to suggest that the order of steps in the dispute resolution process needs to be adjusted and restated somewhat.  There has sometimes been a view that a Request for Comments should precede a Request for Mediation.  I think that a distinction needs to be made between article content issues and user conduct issues.  A user conduct Request for Comments, which is commonly used as the penultimate step before arbitration, is a more serious step than an article content Request for Comments.  (I have suggested that it be renamed, but that is a matter for discussion elsewhere.)
The steps should (in my opinion) be:
#Discussion on article talk pages.
#Article content Request for Comments, if there are content issues.
#Request for Mediation (as the next step after discussion on article talk pages in the event of conduct issues, or after article Request for Comments in the event of content issues).
#User conduct Request for Comments (by whatever name) (if mediation fails).
#Arbitration (as a last resort).
Also, I would suggest that the Request for Mediation page be revised slightly to give more attention to the informal mediation procedures, and to state that informal mediation procedures can be used in place of formal mediation.  More awareness of alternative forms of mediation might help decrease the formal mediation backlog.  (So would more mediators.  Informal mediation is a way of increasing the number of mediators by adding systems.)  
Comments?  Robert McClenon 11:32, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Mediation is the most difficult task at Wikipedia. I had intended to give it more attention after coming back from vacation, but I messed up. This caused a two-month delay while I dealt with the consequences of my mistake. I have decided to follow part of your advice and no longer do admin promotions or name changes. This ought to help me focus my attention on mediation, which you seem to think I have a talent for. I also hope that you yourself will be willing to serve on the Mediation Committee. Anyway, I appreciate your advice and have taken it to heart; I am middle-aged now, and it takes me longer to change my ways than a younger man might be able to manage. Uncle Ed 13:35, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I assume that refusal to participate in mediation by one of the parties allows this step to be skipped. Nereocystis 16:43, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that is correct, and it is also one of the things the arbcom will take into account when making a decision. Uncle Ed 18:12, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

text: I am middle-aged also, and that is one of the reasons I am more interested in changing the processes than in changing the people.  Being middle-aged has its advantages, and one of them for me is a 3-year-old granddaughter.  Robert McClenon 22:35, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mediation Issues 

message: (I'm tempted to make THAT a level 1 header)
Hello everyone... To categorize RFM my intention was this:
*New Requests
*Active
**Pending
**Mediator has responded
**In progress
*Inactive
**Moved to RfC
**Dropped/Abandoned
**Concluded
**Inactive due to wikibreak of one or both parties
*Archives
The reason I did this is because Pending, Mediator has responded, and In progress all show that we've looked at them and are different levels of being in work. Moved to RfC, Dropped/Abandoned, and Concluded and the Wikibreak of one/both parties should go UNDER inactive. The only way to do this was give New Requests, Active, Inactive, and Archives all level 1 headers to show the tree. However, MacGyverMagic reverted me, saying to never use them. I think we should never use them in ARTICLES, however it should be okay for organization's sake to use them here. Opinions?Redwolf24 (talk) 01:09, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks reasonable enough to me. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 23:57, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Why can't you use level four headers (====TITLE====)? IIt gives the same effect. Is this also frowned upon? Flcelloguy | A  note? | Desk |  WS  00:10, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Too much work, plus that'd be changing the whole RfM process. My method just changes the organization quick and easy. Redwolf24 (talk) 01:00, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Level 1 Headers 

message: Maybe Improv or SlimVirgin could help with this. They've both offered advice to the users in question. Uncle Ed 13:32, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Indo-Pak relations

message: Hello!  I noticed the following mediation (which I initiated, and being mediated by CatherineMunro) was removed from the RfM page.  I cannot see any reference to it on the RfM project page except as being 'archived.'  While both parties are working on a resolution to the dispute, we have not successfully concluded our discussions/work ... nor has the mediator indicated this (to my knowledge).  
Thus, this issue remains unresolved.  As this mediation is still active, please restore it as before.  (If there is some other reason for this 'archiving,' please let me know.)  Thanks! E Pluribus Anthony 20:45, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As this mediation is still incomplete, I'm gonna restore it. E Pluribus Anthony 05:13, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Restoration of '''''Dispute between Nixer and E Pluribus Anthony ...''''' to RfM project page

message: I will be starting a page called "Request for media" (or request for photo). RfM will hence need a dissambiguation page. Though you should know. Any comments. --CyclePat 02:31, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would strongly suggest using the Request for Photo title, or a subset of the RfM title, such as RfMe. RfM is a well known shortcut, and there is no precedent for disambiguation of shortcuts. For example, RFA is a common shortcut for both Requests for Adminship and Requests for Arbitration, but WP:RFA only points to Requests for Adminship; Requests for Arbitration uses WP:RFAR. Changing the shortcuts of well known pages is not something to do lightly. Essjay Talk • Contact 21:41, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfM 

message: What's the story here? --Mel Etitis  (Μελ Ετητης) 20:27, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have any idea; I'd suggest asking the Mediation Cabal, since they handle thier own cases. The Mediation Committee doesn't have any direction/supervision of the Mediation Cabal. Essjay Talk • Contact 21:43, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry — I wasn't paying enough attention when I left the question.  --Mel Etitis  (Μελ Ετητης) 23:17, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-02-10 Zhuangzi]] 

message: Moved here from the main RFM page
===Involved Parties===
*
*
*
*68.162.128.9 22:06, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[NiMUD]] and [[Online Creation]] 

message: *
*
*
*68.162.128.9 22:06, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Involved Parties

message: Sloan has entered RFRM's against myself and User:Rook_wave, using a nonstandard format instead of following the template as prescribed (I responded to the request against Rook_wave before noticing the template issue).  He says we're both aware of the requests but I for one found out about it more or less by accident,  through the request page.  Could someone make the appropriate edits?  As an involved party, I shouldn't do it myself.   Phr 06:09, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If the required format is not followed, the request will be delisted. I haven't checked RFM yet today, it's next on my list, so keep an eye out. If it disappears, and you are interested in participating, file a correctly formatted request, or ask the party who filed the incorrect one to do so. Essjay Talk • Contact 07:14, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bogo-requests from Sam Sloan 

message: What is the time-frame for non-response? After how many days does a request get closed if one of the parties is not respoding? KimvdLinde 17:30, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Typically seven to fourteen, to give the editors in question time to make a decision on mediation, especially if there are several editors involved. There is no manditory time limit; requests may be removed as quickly or as slowly as the committee chooses. Essjay Talk • Contact 07:11, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-response timeframe 

message: The Machsom Watch talk page says there is a request for mediation concerning the article, but I cannot find it here. Can anyone help? Palmiro | Talk 12:41, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The request was rejected. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Rejected_3#Machsom_Watch. Essjay Talk • Contact 04:14, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Machsom Watch 

message: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RFC/How_to_present_a_case 
draft
Comment, edit, please.  14:47, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  An essay which may be considered relevant 

message: I had a nice vacation, and am now back on duty. As usual, I've picked up a case which never was formally presented: Falun Gong. I seem to have a radar for this sort of thing. 
Should this be listed in RFM, or the Mediation Cabal, or just kept under the radar, or what? I'm open as usual to any advice or suggestions. --Uncle Ed 17:30, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Falun Gong