Wikipedia talk:Mediation Committee/Archive/2

message: I removed the following from the article because, while true, I think it implies that it's necessary to be an administrator to be a mediator, and that mediation has some connection to sysop duties or powers:
:currently, all members are administrators.
-- BCorr|Брайен 12:12, Apr 22, 2004 (UTC)
----
Continuing the discussion at the message board , Brian and I are willing to be the next joint chairs of the committee.  Are all other committee members OK with this?  We have also talked about when we should rotate again.  It seems sensible to have some cross over, so perhaps we should have a term of four months with one chair rotating out every two months?  If this seems like a quick turn over for such a small group then perhaps six and three would be better.  What do you think? -- sannse (talk) 19:03, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I feel either of you would make an excellent chair; based on that, why should I object if you both want to share it? -- llywrch 01:18, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

message: Dear Mediation committee,
I have requested mediation regarding a dispute that involves myself, RK, and Zero.  Those two have agreed to engage in mediation.  The dispute is listed at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation.  Where do we go from here?  Thank you.  DanKeshet 19:50, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  what next? 

message: I'm not sure how often everyone is looking at the bulletin board - it's been very quiet there.  So this is just to let all mediators know that there is a new post there.  If you could all call in that would be great -- sannse (talk) 18:54, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Bboard

message: I am sitting on my hands awaiting the appointment of a mediator regarding this particular article. I believe FT2 will likely wish to be included in this mediation at this point. In the meantime, is it possible to revert this article and protect it? Again? - Amgine 22:24, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be a matter for an individual admin, or for a request on Wikipedia:Requests for page protection.  I am looking into who should mediate and hope to get back to you soon -- sannse (talk) 12:02, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Cultural and historical background of Jesus]] 

message: Has apparently vanished. I shouldn't be surprised; I haven't looked in there for many months. However, I am currently encountering a problem which I would like to discuss in a confidential location. Any sugestions? -- llywrch 05:15, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: IRC may be a possibility - or email. Basically, the boards were rarely being used, and a serious security hole was discovered in our forum software. Rather than spend ages fixing it, they decided it was easier to shut it down, considering the lack of use. Ambi 05:27, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mediation bulletin board 

message: It seems that Habbit's nomination is doomed, and that there's no major objections to blankfaze and Improv's nominations. Would anyone mind if I archived the nominations and added the other two to the committee list? It's probably a bit soon for several of the others, as they've only had a couple of votes. Ambi 00:04, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Habbit has withdrawn.  I think it best to wait a little longer with the other two though -- sannse (talk) 12:04, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: These new nominations

message: Are there any of these?  I ask because I would be interested in something like mediation.  I've always liked solving disputes between people, and this seems like something I could actually help with on wikipedia.  However, I am admittedly new, unknown to put it clearer.  Are there any specific requirements to be a Mediatior?
All responses, positive and negative thanked,
Pess 01:20, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No real requirements exist.  All you need is to inspire the confidence of the MC and the community.  I'd suggest that, if you want a sense of what the unpoken-but-generally-understood requirements might be, you assume that a user with less than 4 months editing experience here would not receive support.  A user would probably also need to establish some track record of dealing well with disputes that involve them personally.  If you took the initiative to try and resolve disputes you weren't involved in (i.e., informally drop in at the talk page and try to help calmly sort things out), that would also be a major plus.  Other than that, I suggest you look at the list of current mediators, flip through their user pages, and have a look at their contributions here.  That may give some indication.  Thanks for your interest, Jwrosenzweig 04:02, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Requirements or Resume?

message: As you've probably been aware, there have lately been many dispute resolution systems on Wikipedia. Three of those (TINMC, Wikimediation and Mediation2005) have the same aims and goals as WP:RFM. I believe these overlapping processes to be confusing, and would prefer if the several committees joined forces and created one centralized process. Since this one is the most active of the four, I've redirected TINMC and Wikimed here, so that users seeking mediation will end up here. The text at Wikipedia:Mediation (2005) strikes me as an inactive proposal and potentially instruction creep; I've flagged it as historical for now, but please change that if it is actually in use by the people here. Radiant_>|< 10:05, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
:WP:TINMC provides a concrete alternative to the MedCom; it is not duplicative or repetitive.  And I'm still looking for the discussion that you claim exists to support this move. Kelly Martin 11:43, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
The Mediation 2005 proposal was an attempt to revive the MedCom, but it instead led to the TINMC. Which is fine by me as I have no respect for the revived MedCom. The TINMC have done quite alot of good things, but I do see the point in merging instances. So if the MedCom wishes to incoporate the different instances into one, the MedCom, I will not oppose, despite personal opposition. Inter\Echo 01:01, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Simplify 

message: Hi! I'd like to say that, if someone didn't notice, there's a whole pile of mediation requests without being replied in WP:RFM. You surely would understand that we AMA are very interested in having a really working MedCom. I don't expect you to accept all cases, but, at least, to respond the posts! --Neigel von Teighen 17:41, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  A surprised [[WP:AMA|AMA]] member