Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/2006 Archive 2

message: :This seems like too harsh of a plan. What if someone's case gets overlooked as has happened far too often in the past? Will it simply get archived with a 'Nope, sorry, no one came. Now go away?' There will inevitably need to be some sort of organization process and I have no qualms with helping with the janitor work. 
:However, what I do agree with is dropping the assignment of mediators. It is too unreliable and often resorts to cases getting ignored. While there are plus sides to it, such as provoking people into mediating other cases (I was first brought here because I was assigned to a case), there are too many downsides to it. Cowman109Talk 19:08, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It can be much simpler. Just have everyone who is willing to mediate and is free converge on a mediation. You should have an idea which tasks are required (evidence gathering, talking with disputants, witnesses, what have you, finding common ground, finding backrounds, searching talk histories... etc) . So, if you see an open case, do one, or a couple of the required tasks, and let other folks do other tasks. Do the ones you think are fun even. Just like no one "owns" a wikipage, why should we have a rule that says only one person can "own" a mediation? :-) Other than that I think the mediation cabal is working, right? :-) Anyway, you can try this way of working right now, what's stopping you? Kim Bruning 20:19, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: From what I've heard this is just what the mediation cabal used to be: a swarming phenomenon that went off into random cases to work things together as a whole. It seems times have changed, though. Cowman109Talk 21:27, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Wow, that sounds so cool: "times have changed". Sooooo, is that what's stopping you from trying this method out *today*, *right now*? If not, what is?  Kim Bruning 11:18, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

text:  There may be a good reason for a single person dedicated to mediate a given case. Some cases may not need this (I'd call these trivial cases) but when a case is sufficiently complicated helpful comments from a changing crowd may not be enough. My proposal contained an election for the mediator to make sure the disputants show willingness to solve the problem before they get a mediator. Getting people there, to recognize their case is trivial or to elect a mediator, is something that can be accomplished by a changing crowd. --Fasten 17:21, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The complexity of cases the mediation cabal has been able to handle has been going down, rather than up. (Some of the first cases were snarfed from the arbcom even ;-) ), otoh, maybe it's also because the medcab seems to have retooled for quantity. .... hmmm :-) It'd be interesting to study on what things have changed , and how they have improved or hurt the ability to mediate :-) (both in quantity and in quality). I think we'd learn lots of interesting things, in both directions! Kim Bruning 13:45, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  How did you measure that the complexity of cases the mediation cabal has been able to handle has been going down? --Fasten 09:15, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  How many arbcom cases have you snarfed this month? ;-) Kim Bruning 11:01, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

text: What's wrong with the system that is sort of developing.  Cases get submitted and mediators assign themselves to cases.  That seems to be working pretty well.  jbolden1517Talk 03:31, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  If the disputants of a case have to agree on their mediator you get them to cooperate at least on that first step. That may save the mediator some work and may entirely solve some of the trivial cases. A possible scenario would be, for example, that a page is protected from editing and the disputants have to agree on a mediator before they can go back to editing. If they can't agree on a mediator at all they don't make any progress; that might be instructive. --Fasten 09:15, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  That might take a stretch of the existing page protection policy?  What if it's over several articles and no one warrents protection when looked at by itself?  And doesn't that go pretty strongly against the "we're just here to listen, no enforcement, etc." feel-good talk on the front page? - brenneman {L}  13:58, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Swarming discussion 

message: Ok, how about a half-way point: No ose is "assigned" but if someone has "look" or contributes they make a chalk mark?  Check the tally board, if something hasn't been chalked then don't ignore it. - brenneman {L}  13:58, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Informal tracking 

message: I'm aiming this at active mediators.  
What do you all think about changing the template to include an obligations section for the person who requests mediation?  In several cases I find the person requesting mediation is often just looking for more of a quicky no work solution to a dispute rather then entering into a complex mediation.  I'd like to include some language like:
: Mediation is a very effective process for dispute resolution.  However it is labor intensive.  By asking for mediation you should understand that your time commitment is likely to increase during the period of mediation.
Any thoughts? Jbolden1517 01:59, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Adding a comment like this to the template might scare off users as well. We are an informal mediation process, and as such we should be flexible in our ways of helping people with issues. Many times I have had to refer people to other places because they are looking for general help instead of a mediation request, but if they come here for help I don't see why we shouldn't help them. Unless we suddenly become a strict group that harshly deals with requests that aren't suited for mediation, I don't see why we should scare people off. Cowman109Talk 02:06, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Mediation doesn't have to require a lot of time from the submitter. The wording is misleading the way it is. The disputants in a mediation case have as much time to respond as they require. --Fasten 09:05, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Obligations 

message: From time to time I happen across the above link and always question myself: "Why is this here?" This list is rarely kept up to date and it adds unecessary added confusion to keeping track of cases. I am suggesting that the assignment table becomes an orphaned article and that links to it should be removed as it may confuse people new to the Mediation Cabal who use it as a list of assignments as opposed to the actual list at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases. What are people's thoughts on this? Cowman109Talk 23:39, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree.  We all go off the main list.  jbolden1517Talk 00:35, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree. The idea was to track the assignments of submitters who are willing to mediate a case. The assignment table would have allowed to keep an eye on inexperienced mediators, to track submitters without assignments and to keep track of mediators who had a look at one of the cases (reviewed a case). It isn't particularly useful the way it is being used. --Fasten 13:29, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well as it appears Fasten was the only one who made extensive use of this page, I am going to go ahead and remove references to it to avoid any confusion. Cowman109Talk 15:02, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

text: WP:MFD the thing. If only Fasten was using it, then no point in even archiving it, imho. ~Kylu (u|t)  04:14, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Deletion of [[Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/assignment-table]]

message: Does anyone think it might be a good idea to put numbers by cabalists names to show how many 
Cases they have so cabalists assigning cases don't overload other cabalists. Geo.plrd 21:37, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If someone is assigned to a case they have the right to refuse to take that case - besides, generally cases are only assigned to people who say they would like to mediate a case on their request for mediation. Lately cases haven't been assigned much lately either, with the serious reduction of the backlog (though it's creeping up again). Cowman109Talk 22:27, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Numbers 

message: See above for question. 21:37, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, that is a good question. I'm the coordinator of the Mediation Cabal; I don't have a clearly defined role as such, primarily because the Mediation Cabal is designed by nature to be as ad hoc as possible, but basically I do what my name suggests - act as the overall person who coordinates aspects of the project, and makes sure it is all going smoothly. I'm the recourse to appeal, also; that is, if people aren't happy with the way they've been handled in the Mediation Cabal, I'm the person to sort it out, and I also inspect the mediation work undertaken periodically and check that people know what they're doing. Basically I'm the "overseer", if you will, of the efforts down here, although I don't impose dictatorial control over anything because obviously we're an informal system. With regard to the Deputy Coordinator, basically he's there if I'm eaten by lions, run over by a 'bus, struck by a bolt of lightning, &c. :) Best regards, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 23:55, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What does the Coordinator and Deputy Coorindator do? 

message: This doesn't sound right to me:
How do I get a mediator assigned to my case?
There is no reliable assignment of mediators. You can either wait until somebody else is assigned to your case by a cabalist doing a bit of administrative work or you can do that administrative work yourself. If you submit a case and you are willing to mediate just pick another case from the list where the submitter is willing to mediate and write your signature next to the case.
I can speed up the process of getting someone assigned to my case by doing some kind of administrative work? What? How? You mean just mediate my own case?
I can only mediate a case in which the submitter of the case is willing to mediate a different case? As a thank you on Wikipedia's behalf to someone who's willing to help? Can't I mediate a case in which the submitter doesn't want to help?
I'd reword it myself if I knew for sure what it meant. I didn't read the entire page though. -Barry- 13:20, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've taken your case.  You are right that the main page description sucks Pretty much there is nothing you can do to speed it up.  OTOH its been going pretty fast lately.  jbolden1517Talk 16:04, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Assignments section wording 

message: I recently moved the archive box and the notice for mediators to sign their cases to the cases page as opposed to the main mediation cabal page. In the past we have found that the archives aren't visible enough. Because the archive consists of a great deal of code that would clutter the page, I put it on a template at Wikipedia: Mediation Cabal/archivetemplate. If there's any problems, say so here (and be bold and fix it if I unknowingly made some huge goof). Cowman109Talk 19:16, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archive template 

message: Who else thinks we should establish a review board of senior mediators to review cases on request and investigate complaints. Also the infamous backlog is creeping up.
Geo.plrd 22:53, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My personal belief is that this would be against the purpose of the Mediation Cabal by giving some mediators a sort of title that makes them 'higher' than other Mediators. It is meant to be an informal process where anyone can jump in and help a matter, and this might discourage would-be mediators from jumping in to a case already in mediation to give a third opinion on the matter. If the Mediation Cabal becomes too formal with a sort of strict hierarchy and all that jazz, then the ultimate goal of being a calm, laid-back place to request for help in content disputes is lost. Cowman109Talk 00:10, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal 

message: I am new and don't know how to talk to someone neutral about this. Someone (Ardenn) did not like what I wrote about and then looked at my contributions list and started deleting it all. When I tried to say "Lets just deal with the real issue you have a problem with, instead of deleting my other, unrelated articles" then allof a sudden (within 2 minutes) all these other people started randomly agreeing with his deletions. I guess there is no way to prove it, excpet for the fact that it happened in such a short amount of seconds and to just the pages I had worked on, but I looked it up adn it sounds like "sockpuppeting". I don't knwo what to do! I think I need a neutral, outside person to help, but I can't tell who is neutral from the people who also edit those pages, because it might be him! Please help! I don't know what to do and am so upset and never want to use wikipedia again. :( —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Veritasophia (talk • contribs) .
:Hi there! I will respond on your talk page to see if I can help you out. Cowman109Talk 23:17, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll look into the situation as well. Could you give a list of articles which were attacked? CP/M 23:51, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The matter is currently being discussed at User talk:9cds and User talk:Veritasophia. Cowman109Talk 00:07, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please help! 

message: I am going to close the Web 2.0 Reference case. Does anyone object?
The anon who started it put no info down.Geo.plrd 21:00, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd have to object. The anonymous IP was unable to properly create the page because IPs can't create pages. I'd give it a day or two to see if the IP comes along and adds to it - I left a note on his or her talk page. Cowman109Talk 21:14, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

text: thanks, I will let it sit for a couple daysGeo.plrd 21:54, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks for keeping me informed, I'll leave this too. --Xyrael T 21:15, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Putting that strikeout on the list page is likely to discourage the requester from adding to that specific page. How about removing the strikeout? Have a look at the talk page for Web 2.0 and you will see things are getting rather ugly. --12:21, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops, you're right. Thanks for reminding me, I'll go and remove it now. --Xyrael T 12:38, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Web 2.0 case 

message: I propose that we eliminate some of the sections included in case reports, things like "evidence" and "compromise offers" really just make things more difficult for the mediator. I suggest we eliminate all of the sections beginning at "mediator response" and going down. The only part of the bottom that would remain would be "discussion". I think this would simplify mediation, and make the whole process less formal (Which, after all, is the entire philosophy of the Mediation Cabal) Any comments? The Prophet Wizard of the Crayon Cake {Prophesize) 23:06, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wholeheartedly agree with you. Some of the sections are distracting and I often find myself deleting them to start with. However - there are some cases in which the evidence section is useful, though that can easily be added by the Mediator if he or she wishes. Perhaps the template could remain as it is with the exception of those sections being commented out with   , so if there is a need to include them, it's a simple removal of the comment tag. Cowman109Talk 23:51, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Neato idea. I like it. The Prophet Wizard of the Crayon Cake {Prophesize) 08:56, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I can live with that.  Most of the sections I don't find useful but OTOH "Mediator comments" is very useful to me.  Joebone uses the discussion and evidence sections heavily.  I do think the "comments by others" should stay we want a dedicated place for not involved people to toss in comments.  Why don't we hold a poll section by section though?  We all use the template differently.  jbolden1517Talk 12:45, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I was thinking of a  section, myself. Stick all the link URL's in one place, keep the page clean. "Summary" "Discussion" "Mediator Comments" and "Resolution", in order that they're used. What'cha think? ~Kylu (u|t)  03:04, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A less structured approach

message: I would like to make a request for some sort of mediation at the FC Barcelona article. I have looked for a template to intiate a discussion but could not find one suitable. The issue is basicly about article size. In order to keep the article within Wikipedia guidelines, several other articles have been created and are linked together in . However an anonymous editor has ignored my suggestions to add contributions to other articles rather then the main article. He has persistently overloaded the page with info that is included in other articles and refuses to engage in any debate or log-in. Djln --Djln 23:41, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi there! If you follow the directions here, you can file your request for mediation. Thanks. Cowman109Talk 23:54, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for mediation

message: Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Mediators is way out of date.  I think we should either AFD or keep it up to date.  BTW it is what links from :Category:Mediation Cabal Mediator which is how I found it.  jbolden1517Talk 00:39, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ew, the evidence template apparently links to that list. To save any hassle I will change that link to a redirect to the list of mediators on the main Medcab page and will change the template to go to that as well. Cowman109Talk 00:50, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There, I changed the evidence template to point people to the list of mediators on the main medcab page, but I forgot you can't redirect to a section of an article. There are very few pages that link here, though, so I will use AWB to change those links to Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal#Cabalists. Cowman109Talk 00:54, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, so much for that. Apparently the only thing to edit was the template. With the exception of this page, the link should be orphaned. It could be speedied I suppose as an article not in use. Cowman109Talk 01:03, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Old list of mediators 

message: Thanks to everyone who's keeping an eye on the redlinks that pop up when people forget to file a case. Just as a reminder and suggestion, when you remove a case, it may be a good idea to put it on your watchlist in case it pops up, and also if it isn't too difficult searching through the history, informing them that the case wasn't filed properly may be a step forward. Thanks. Cowman109Talk 20:09, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing redlinks 

message: As you'll see by my edits, I removed mention of the assignment table (which was rarely used and has been orphaned) and of assigning mediators. The assignment process has generally a) been abused by people not necessarily experienced enough people assigned to cases and b) outdated, as the backlog is nonexistant. Cowman109Talk 21:30, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Assignment of mediators gone 

message: Recently the issue has come up of mediation cabal pages splitting up disputes into a wide-audience consensus-driven discussion to one of one on one talks. Often, pages in which a conflict is occuring are torn apart and redirected to mediation pages, leaving others involved in the dispute left in the dust.
A possibility to make the mediation process more efficient would be to by default, bring problems that are actually content disputes and issues requiring mediation (not just policy misunderstandings) to the talk pages of articles instead of bringing everything to the case page. Basically, what I'm suggesting is the radical idea that the case page is used for describing the problem and explaining what should be done with it, and then a mediator could clarify what is needed on the case page and go to the talk page of the article in question. This way other people can join in on the discussion so no one is left out.
What are your thoughts about this? Cowman109Talk 22:04, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems logical, as it requires less effort for others to join a discussion, and doesn't restrict them to merely posting a comment. In case of content disputes input can be important. CP/M 22:53, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Agreed that's what  I do currently and I think its a good idea.  I think a good model for this is the RFAr pages which prohibit debate.  I'd like Joebone's input though since he is a heavy user of the case page for debate so that we make sure that we consider the other side.  jbolden1517Talk 14:50, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Indeed, I do that anyways. -- The Prophet Wizard of the Crayon Cake {Prophesize) 22:26, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Talk page mediation 

message: Greetings,
I need an advocate who will walk me through the mediation process.
I am trying to get the following added to the Many Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics.  Max Tegark is a renown physicist and a PhD profressor of cosmology at MIT.  He agrees with my addition.
I am having problem with an editor by the name of Lethe who follows me around Wikipedia reverting all my edits without commentary.
I have tried reasoning with him on discussion pages, but he refuses to read what I write.
 <irrelevant section refactored out. Kim Bruning 22:12, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Michael.  To start with, have you thoroughly read the page Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal, particulary the section entitled, "Making a request for assistance"?  That tells you step by step how to request mediation. Aguerriero (talk) 19:37, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And uh, no offense, but repeating this same explanation to every single person on the list of mediators in addition to the one here is a tad excessive. Cowman109Talk 21:11, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I need an advocate and help with mediation 

message: Ok, since there's not really a place to put requests for being critiqued, I've got the wonderful idea of having a section on the talk page for it, so that all the requests aren't sprawled out everywhere. Thoughts? -- The Prophet Wizard of the Crayon Cake {Prophesize) 23:55, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm maybe a subpage since this is where random people come to for help anything cabal-related. Cowman109Talk 00:01, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Huh? I think we might be talking about two different things here. I'm referring to mediators request to be analyzed and given suggestions and whatno, just to clarify. -- The Prophet Wizard of the Crayon Cake {Prophesize) 02:23, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hm.. no I don't understand :D. Are you proposing that a part of this talk page is set aside for asking for assistance in cases? Cowman109Talk 02:43, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is a good idea, especially crucial for aspiring med cabalists who seek improvement. -- Evanx(tag?) 02:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, wow. It took me three read-throughs to understand that. Note to self - reading these sorts of things when I'm half asleep is not a good idea. A section aside for critiquing definitely would be beneficial, yes. Cowman109Talk 02:59, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticy-ness

message: :Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_June_26#Template:DisputedMC
:Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_June_26#Template:ActiveDiscussMC
I nominated these template for deletion. --Fasten 20:07, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Welcome back, Fasten! And thanks. Cowman109Talk 02:44, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unused templates nominated for deletion 

message: Jbolden1517 edited the mediation cabal page to state that he was a co-coordinator of the mediation cabal. 
He has claimed before the arbitration committee that he is a mediator.
Both these claims are now false.
As of this moment, Jbolden is not a member of the mediation cabal, and there has never been any kind of consensus on wikipedia allowing him to claim he is a mediator. Jbolden does not speak for the mediation cabal, and has no authority wrt the mediation cabal. 
Kim Bruning 17:06, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oh no, please don't say the magic spell.  Ouch, I'm melting I'm melting.  Get a grip, Kim.  jbolden1517Talk 01:29, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Jbolden1517 is not a member of the mediation cabal

message: Please note that this is mostly a process complaint. Digital_me undertook this mediation, which was to resolve an evenly divided poll. He did not facilitate discussion in any way; he essentially decided that one side was right and they had won. 
I understand that this is a temptation; but he should have recused himself and joined in the poll. I do not find this an acceptable process of mediation; and I do not expect to accept him as a mediator again. Septentrionalis 01:16, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Digital_me

message: #wikipedia-medcab on freenode is registered. Just to let'cha all know. :)
I 49'd myself for the time being (happily open for moving it to someone else if needbe) and added a limited number of users to access level 45. Questions, comments, etc... happily discussed. ~Kylu (u|t)  01:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You beat me to it by a mile, cool! :-) Kim Bruning 09:30, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mediation Cabal channel on freenode 

message: User:MSTCrow has recently added himself to the mediator list; as he is someone with three recent blocks for personal attacks  (one of a week's duration), I feel he is unsuited to be listed on the page. Do we have a process for establishing consensus on these things? Sdedeo (tips) 11:39, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I have seen, anyone can add their name to the list.  I guess if they take a case and the person who filed doesn't feel they are credible or neutral, they can request a new mediator.  --Aguerriero (talk) 13:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: His blocks were two months ago, and a lot can change in that time. As I've been been saying for some time, if we get into the habit of watching eachother's backs, we can prevent any major goofs from happening in advance. So instead of discouraging him, assume good faith and simply keep an eye out for trouble in his cases as you would for any other new mediator. Cowman109Talk 15:54, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with Cowman109, he may have changed. we should wait and see.Geo. 22:49, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I also have concerns about MSTCrow, but I'll just keep an eye on his cases.  Ideogram 22:28, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: MSTCrow

message: There is a bot written (by Ericj) which will put all pages in the new cases category in an area specified on a certain page (namely the new cases section, on the Cases page, but it hasn't been set up yet). The bot request is here. I can do the same for open cases, but it will eliminate the mediator from the list as well as any comments. I'm inclined to think that is a GoodThing, and that comments should be on case talk pages, but I'd like community input. Eventually I'd like to set up automatic archiving, but there isn't any now.
;To accept a case
#Change the category from :Category:Wikipedia Medcab new cases to :Category:Wikipedia Medcab open cases. That will remove it from the new cases section. If open cases is automated (as I would like), it will also be moved to the open cases section automatically. If it isn't, you'll need to put it there yourself.
#If automated, you might want to indicate somewhere that you're looking at it and can be contacted, etc.
;To close a case
#Change the category from :Category:Wikipedia Medcab open cases to :Category:Wikipedia Medcab closed cases. Then list it at the archive. If open cases is automated, it won't appear on the cases page anymore. If it isn't, you'll need to remove it also.
I think that's about it. Please ask questions, give suggestions, whatever. --Keitei (talk) 12:23, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Bot is approved for a trial run. It is running about every 10 minutes (need to tweak a bit), and the bot generated list has not replaced what is there already. We're trying the inputbox on a trial run as well. Please give input as to how well you think these work. --Keitei (talk) 21:51, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Okay, you know I'm old and senile and all, so wasn't quite understanding this: Can I continue archiving cases, or is the bot going to do something weird and/or break if I keep trying to keep things archived? I haven't touched it so far, since figured that's what the bot was for. Thanks! ~Kylu (u|t)  23:02, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wasn't talking about the archiving.  I noticed that "QDB" and "POV on Joe Lieberman" for instance aren't listed under "Cases in need of mediators" but are listed under "Bot generated list of cases needing mediators".  Ideogram 23:10, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The new input box creates an orphaned case page with Category:Wikipedia medcab new cases. When the bot checks the list every 15 minutes or so, it puts the cases with the new cases category in the bot generated list. At the moment the new cases list is not being used. When a case is taken, it should still be moved to the list of cases in mediation and the category tag should be changed to Category:Wikipedia medcab open cases. The bot at the moment just deals with listing new cases, I believe. Cowman109Talk 00:33, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Adding new->open moving functionality is in the works.  It'll be followed by some stuff for administrative tasks. EricJ 01:12, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

text: The bot only edits when there is something to update - it's the same as someone adding a new case, only it makes it so that all someone has to do is create the case page instead of create the case page and add a link to it in the open cases section. Cowman109Talk 01:24, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I see that now.  Ideogram 01:25, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Bot

message: I don't know enough about the background to this to have been able to get involved earlier in the fuss over User:Jbolden1517. I still don't really understand what's going on, but I would like to share what I do know: I and others recognize that Jbolden1517 has put a hell of a lot of effort into mediation, and has been instrumental in rescuing some very dire situations (eg on Every Nation). Now that Jbolden1517 has announced s/he (someone help me out with the whole gender thing here) is leaving Wikipedia, I'd like to appeal to others to reconsider how this situation might be resolved more amicably, and with a better outcome. Ya'll are supposed to be mediators! ;¬) Seems to me Jbolden1517 has put too much good work into Wikipedia for it to end in this way.  Sincerely, David L Rattigan 09:24, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've talked to the parties concerned and, beleive you me, I desperately wanted a mediated outcome. Hopefully none of them mention that I actually begged them on IRC to come to amicable terms, but I'm afraid it didn't work out that way this time. :( ~Kylu (u|t)  22:55, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Jbolden1517

message: Due to current bot limitations, please explain the status of a case in the mediator response section of a case, so that way discussion will not clutter the case list and will instead be in the case page itself. Thanks. Cowman109Talk 00:44, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please list the status of a case in the mediator response section 

message: I've changed the inputbox a little bit (as the section title suggests). I chaged it to say  "the name of the article in dispute " instead of "a short description of your dispute"... hopefully this will eliminate some of the assuming-bad-faith and NPOV case names that have been poping up lately. I've also changed the look and feel of the whole thing, to make it look spiffier. 
Tell me what you think, and give some suggestions while your at it. --The Prophet Wizard of the Crayon Cake 05:38, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Changing the inputbox a little bit

message: I found myself typing this a lot so I created a template, Template:Broad input.  Here is what it looks like:
I also found Template:Tilde, which I didn't know about before.  --Ideogram 06:07, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  new template:  Broad input 

message: With this new system, there is no way for a cabalist to see who is working on what, I found that kind of handy to be honest, to just see a list of what everyone was working on.
TruthCrusader 18:50, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I agree that the names of mediators certainly was handy. I believe there are plants to get the bot to recognize who is assisting in the mediation of a case and list it on the main page, along with any comments through the use of a template. You'll have to ask Keitei about that, though. Cowman109Talk 19:13, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is indeed in the works. Since I'm not writing the bot, I don't know when it'll be up and running, but it should be soon. What the bot will be able to do is take input from a template on each case page and grab who the mediator is (and perhaps a few other details) and print that on the Cases page. It'll be a  format, as far as I know, perhaps a different template with a similar purpose for mediators/cabalists. Anyhow, the idea is to make everything simpler for everyone and to make filing and accepting a case simple. In the interim period, there are several drawbacks, but it should be a lot cooler soon. :] --Keitei (talk) 01:27, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Who is working on what

message: jumpTV is listed under both open and needing mediators.  Looking at the case itself I see it is tagged as open but no mediator is listed.  Ideogram 18:20, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That was due the case accidentally being in both the open and new cases category. I have moved the category listing a bit further down in the template so it is not overlooked in the future. Cowman109Talk 23:20, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  jumpTV listed twice 

message: I am working on a Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-07-02 QDB, however I need to take a rather urgent Wikibreak (or rather I am already sort of on it) due to real life matters and I don't know when I will be back.  Could be just a couple of days or could be over a week.  So could someone please take over this case for me.
It is just a matter of deciding whether QDB should be a disambiguation page or whether it should redirect to the page of the most popular website that uses the acronym QDB.  The discussion is taking place at Talk:QDB (and it seems since that it is growing a bit out of hand - in one day of my absence there appeared what looks like a list of ad hominems with an argument over those rather than an issue).  I hope someone can take up this case quickly - if I return soon I will be willing to can take it back on my shoulders again.  Thanks in advance!--Konstable 07:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Never mind that, I have it all sorted early - so I'm no longer on a wikibreak.--Konstable 01:49, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Someone to relieve me 

message: it would be *really helpful* if medcabers could drop by WP:TFD and comment on :Template:DisputedMC and :Template:ActiveDiscussMC, I don't tknow what to do with them .--  Drini 21:46, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  templates on TFD 

message: With the new bot in place it seems that no one has archived a page. This might be a serious problem as cases are being closed and not archived, and are thus lost from pretty much every list other than :Category:Wikipedia Medcab closed cases. Please remember the archive when you close things. --The Prophet Wizard of the Crayon Cake 23:53, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please archive cases (UPDATE:errr... nevermind) 

message: Hmmm... so I'm bored, and want to know how everybody thinks I'm doing. Tell me my good and bad points when I mediate an issue, so I can get an idea of what you folks think.
Be honest!!! I promise I won't rip your head off for being blunt. I want your honest opinion, not flattery.
Current cases I'm involved in:
*Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-07-08 List of Publications in Philosopy - Ayn Rand (Just started, nothing exciting)
*Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-07-08 Macedonism 
* Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-07-05 Wikipedia:WOT 
*Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-06-21 Death Valley Driver Video Review (Nearly done)
*Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-06-25 Norman Lowell (No answer)
Some old cases:  (Chronological order)
* Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-06-16 User:Sheynhertz-Unbayg (Nothing much here)
* Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-06-16 Disemvoweling
* Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-06-10 Carmen Electra
* Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-06-03 Kingdom of Asturias (No answer)
* Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-06-05 Bullshit
Thanks. --The Prophet Wizard of the Crayon Cake 18:25, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The critisism hurts sooo good. 

message: I really miss being able to scan the list on one page and see who is handling which case.  Can this be put back?  --Ideogram 13:26, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hopefully we are getting a nice little template to put on the case page that will let the bot automatically update the current mediators and a nice little comment to the case. I'm not quite sure how that's coming yet, though. Cowman109Talk 15:55, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mediator handling case 

message: Is there a Mediation how-to for those finding themselves drafted as a mediator? CovenantD 21:00, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Suggestions_for_mediators you mean? Cowman109Talk 21:01, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What Cowman said!  But also, you may want to look over some cases in progress being mediated by others for ideas.  What works for one may not work for another, but you should find your style fairly easily.  I have found that most involved parties are just glad someone is there to help - they are usually patient with little glitches along the way if they know you mean well. --Aguerriero (talk) 21:04, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for the link. Is there a list of Cabal subpages somewhere, especially the forementioned case pages? I'm relatively new to Wiki (3 months) and I'm still learning my way around, so there might be a simple nav guide around I just haven't seen. CovenantD 21:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Duh. I just got to Cowman109's edits to the MedCab page. Nevermind. CovenantD 21:28, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tutorial? 

message: It was not mediation, but there is an example (I think) of a highly divided group coming to a reasonable concensus on an article.  Look at the list of archives on the talk page.  We went around and around and around -- but the final article was MUCH better when many people contributed and worked together.  It is really an inspiration to me.  The article is Homosexual agenda. --Anon 64 21:05, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I think you will find that when people agree on basic principles including allowing everyone to have their say and making good faith efforts to reach consensus the system works surprisingly well.  --Ideogram 21:31, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  An Example (I think)

message: Tried fixing something small on his talk page.
User: User:89.32.1.82 got angry, I got involved in a one-upping fight, then we had a mini-wiki-war.
I do watch many user pages, including his.
Right now it has stopped with his being banned for 48 hours.
If it continues I will notify you.
--Qho 20:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This does not appear to have much to do with the Mediation Cabal. We are an informal mediation initiative and there isn't much we can do about this. I will bring the issue to WP:ANI, though, as it seems more suited to being there. Cowman109Talk 22:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit conflict 

message: We've been submitted a case on the most hot issue today - Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-07-25 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict. The case itself is dedicated just to links in the article, but, since it is a hot issue, it might spread to whatever else. I'll take the case for mediation, but, if you feel you can help in the mediation or just watch over the process and help with issues, it would be realy appreciated. CP/M (Wikipedia Neutrality Project) 21:40, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-07-25 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict|Israel-Lebanon conflict]] 

message: If I've posted this to the wrong place, please forgive. Over the past week, there has been a deletionist attack on several major high IQ societies, and one article has already been deleted. That article concerned a reputable society, established for over 20 years, which has received extensive mainstream media coverage and gets 12 thousand Google hits, the Mega Society. Up for deletion is an article about Ronald Hoeflin, who also has received much media attention and is perhaps the leading psychometrician in the field of high-end psychometrics, and also articles about, among others, the Prometheus Society, which has produced major scholarly articles on high IQ testing.
Here's what I wrote during the Mega Society deletion debate. It's worth printing here because it has implications far beyond the rarefied world of high IQ societies.
This deletion debate horrifies me. When I read 1984, where anyone whom the ruling elite didnt like was made an "unperson" and all records of him erased, I thought, thank God that's fiction. When I read about the old Soviet Encyclopedia, and how anyone who fell out of favor had his article (as well as his life) deleted, and all users were sent a letter by the NKVD telling them to cut that article out of the volume, I thought, thank God I dont live there. But this is chillingly real.
There are two aspects to my horror.
--Aguerriero (talk) 15:33, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I will reply on your Talk page to avoid cluttering this page. --Aguerriero (talk) 15:33, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, unfortunately this isn't the place, but Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2006_July_22#Mega_Society is. A discussion is already in process there on whether to overturn the deletion of the article or not. Cowman109Talk 15:47, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Deletionist campaign against high-IQ Societies

message: Just a heads up. The members list is being used for survey requests 
See my talk page for details.Geo. 22:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You know there's no direct link to your talk page in your sig, right? Anyway, many of us have already taken the survey. :) (Kylu@Work) 207.145.133.34 18:36, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  PARC 

message: Because it is scandaleous enough that the remark was there because everybody knew that it was about somebody. It is even weirder that it takes several reverts because people keep putting it back in and use deceptive edit summaries like the person who originally added the attack.
You might want to consider changing the introduction, because the Mediation Cabal is not a friendly team and considers harassment insignificant and that some embarassing mediation are deleted is no problem either. 
Clean up your act, meditators. As always there is nobody helping you on Wikipedia. Only people covering for each other. KittenKlub 00:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The "personal attack" is directed at someone? It looks pretty vague and general to me... I don't know RobChurch's experience with MedCab. --The Prophet Wizard of the Crayon Cake 00:30, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That attack is directed against me. That was because he failed a mediation and took revenge by that remark. KittenKlub 00:31, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks pretty innocent to me... if it were directed at you it would probably include a name somewhere. *shrugs* I don't care, personally. --The Prophet Wizard of the Crayon Cake 00:33, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think he liked this way. It was his kind of revenge. Good that you don't care. Nobody seems to care. I guess that that is the real issue. KittenKlub 00:37, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  How many times do you need to revert a page to remove a personal attack 

message: Several months ago, I had been assigned mediator of the Natasha Demkina case. My attempted mediation did not go well, as I did not at the time have a proper understanding of what is required of a mediator. I stepped down as mediator and took a break, but have returned to Wikipedia and am now involved with that article as an editor, and have had some success in expanding the article in a way consistent with the current consensus. We are currently dealing with disagreements over the acceptability of certain sources, and there are some civility issues that still need clearing up on the talk page. Still, I believe the article is headed in the direction of a more complete and neutral treatment of its subject.
I have come to request another assignment as mediator. If I were to be assigned a case, I would be certain not to repeat the mistakes I made before. I would not approach the case with an editor's attitude, or with my own preconceived notion of what the article needs. I would contact all of the involved parties at the outset, and would help them work toward consensus, rather than weighing in with my own views. I offer to mediate the Ninja rocks case, if a regular member of the Cabal would be so kind as to assign it to me. Thankyou. Rohirok 12:49, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You don't need to be assigned to a case to take it. :] Just choose a case from the new cases (or chime in on open case), change the category at the bottom of the page to Category:Wikipedia Medcab open cases, and begin mediating as you please. Thanks for your help! --Keitei (talk) 01:50, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for assignment