Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/2007 Archive 2

message: I've updated the MedCab case status template, so that "open" is rendered in green, etc.. (similar to the AMA status indicator at the bottom of case pages. Hopefully this will provide a bit more readability.
Kind regards,anthonycfc [talk] 06:34, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Status Fields 

message: Hi I've been lurking around reading (and adoring) Wikipedia's approach to dispute resolution. As an attorney focused in ADR now working for a statewide non-profit in NY, I'm not only interested in helping out the Wikicommunity but also taking your experience out of cyberspace to students and professional mediators. I'm probably not the first person to have approached you about this, but hey--your doing great work and building a really powerful model. --I now have a username iceweaselqueen but little experience in the ettiquete or best way to approach others sharing my interest in conflict resolution. Suggestions?
Iceweaselqueen 19:55, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're not the first (see the section #Harvard law class will be mediating as an assignment above), but you're very welcome. I'm not sure if we have many good success stories here - see #visiting after absence (and Wikipedia talk:Mediation Committee/Archive 4#Success stories for the Mediation Committee, which is a different entity from the Mediation Cabal). — Sebastian 20:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Connecting with dispute resolution folks 

message: Good evening all; I'm currently using these templates at the top and bottom of all my successful MedCabal cases (I've not developed unsuccessful ones yet - I've not needed them :) I was wondering if the wider community would like to trial them?
I'd prefer for them to stay in my userspace, but edits and improvements are welcome!
Kind regards,anthonycfc [talk] 22:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not a fan of these; they are huge and people rarely look at closed cases anyway.  That said, it would be useful for mediators to be able to leave some kind of comment as to how the case ended; whether it died from lack of interest, was referred to another form of dispute resolution, etc.  --Ideogram 22:59, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm just taking it from my mediation at MedCom, and it seems to work there. Mind you, MedCom is formal; well, anyway, watch this space. anthonycfc [talk] 00:26, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You could accomplish the same thing and address my concerns by (1) not putting a huge image in it and (2) not duplicating the same message at the top and bottom.  I don't see any reason to place this information so prominently and yell "look at me"; whatever you want to say can be put in the "Mediator response" section.  --Ideogram 16:36, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Closed Case Headers/Footers 

message: I have some proposed some changes to Template:ActiveDiscussMC on its talk page. Any input is welcomed. Vassyana 14:45, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This template is not often used, anyway.  --Ideogram 16:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that has a bit to do with it not being on the main page or suggestions for mediators page. I think if its use was encouraged, it was see more action. Just my opinion though, you're welcome to take it with some salt. ;o) Vassyana 17:05, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We haven't really decided if it's a useful template or not.  You are welcome to improve it and try to convince others that it is useful.  --Ideogram 17:32, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I shall make the attempt then. ;o) Thank you for all your feedback. It is appreciated. Vassyana 03:39, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed template changes 

message: I got sick and tired of fixing misnamed case pages, so I came up with an idiot-proof case page creation procedure.
You can see how it works by following the instructions at User:Ideogram/medcab instructions.
Suggestions and comments welcome.  If there are no objections in the next few days I will replace the current instructions and procedure.  --Ideogram 13:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that's a good change. Vassyana 18:38, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have made the change.  Along the way I rewrote the rest of the page too.  I have also edited the case request form and the form instructions.  Comments and suggestions welcome. --Ideogram 10:22, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New case request filing procedure 

message: I made a some changes to the WP:DR page. I was looking for a little feedback to see what people thought of the changes. Vassyana 18:38, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change to DR page 

message: MedCab mediators are supposed to consider themselves as ordinary editors with no status above any other user.  There have been concerns expressed that going to a dispute and saying, "Hi, I'm a mediator from MedCab" is not consistent with this.  The way it used to work is mediators would mysteriously show up at a dispute and not "blow their cover".  Should we recommend going back to this approach?  --Ideogram 00:16, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wasn't there when that approach was used, so I can't compare the two. But it seems to me that the open approach is more likely to create trust, especially in tough conflicts where people are very suspicious of every editor that does't 100% agree with them. — Sebastian 06:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Personally, I prefer an open process for MedCab mediation. I think as long as the mediators are clear that they are an informal mediator and do not put on any pretense of being an official or similar authority, there shouldn't be a problem. I honestly wonder if secrecy or "stealth" mediation is appropriate for an informal process. I also wonder if it could be potentially harmful to mediation. After all, I can imagine quite a number of editors would get upset if someone was "sneaky" about mediation and strongly question their motives and POV. Like Sebastian mentioned, there are a lot of situations where people are already suspicious of recently arrived editors at the article. Just some thoughts. Vassyana 13:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Self-identifying as mediator 

message: Hello, all you fine mediators: I just wanted to drop you a note to say that I have just resuscitated Wikipedia:Guerrilla Mediation Network in an effort to solve the problems regarding overwork and old cases not getting mediated encountered here at the MedCab, and to provide a secondary means for people to seek more rapid assistance should they be impatient to wait. It occurred to me that in the event of cases not receiving mediators within a reasonable timeframe, someone could simply whack a Guerrilla Mediation template on the talk page with a link to the MedCab case page, and we could then deal with it instead. We are promising, at present, a 24-48h response timeframe. In addition, if anyone would be interested in helping out as a mediator, or should anyone have any comments about the initiative, I would be thrilled to hear from you. Yours, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 04:40, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Guerrilla Mediation Network has reopened 

message: has mediated many cases for MedCab.  I have asked him to conduct a discussion giving new mediators the benefit of his experience.  Please feel free to comment or ask questions at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Suggestions for mediators/Addhoc.  --Ideogram 22:04, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion for new mediators 

message: How does one become a volunteer here? I would like to help. IvoShandor 17:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just pick a case from the new cases list, add yourself as a mediator, and go!  You will need to add your username on the line that says "|mediators = " and change the line that says "|status = new" to "|status = open".  --Ideogram 20:29, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellente. Thought so, just wanted to make sure. Thanks. IvoShandor 20:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: How to

message: I think I may be losing my neutrality on Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-03-06 Looking for Alaska. I feel  is claiming censorship, blaming all of the conflict on one editor (other editors opposed his position) and pureposefully playing ignorant of policy. The issue comes down to LEAC desiring to use a blog and blog comments as a source, while cherrypicking it for a quote. I've tried pushing on the policy and guidelines. I think I may have already pushed harder than I should have. Could other mediators look over the case and give me some feedback and advice? Vassyana 21:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Vassyana, had a look, my (very limited) understanding of policy is that WP:SOURCE indicates "material from self-published or questionable sources may be used in articles about those sources, so long as: it is relevant to their notability;	it is not contentious;	it is not unduly self-serving;	it does not involve claims about third parties, or about events not directly related to the subject;	there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it; [and]	the article is not based primarily on such sources". In this context, I would say the quote passes WP:SOURCE and by implication WP:NOR. However, WP:UNDUE advises "an article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject". Quoting several paragraphs by the author (regardless of source) and not referring to any other sources, is possibly giving undue weight. Accordingly, I would suggest trimming the quote and giving specific mentions of media coverage about the controversy. Addhoc 19:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A little help 

message: I proposed a change to WP:3O both on the talk page and on the village pump. I would appreciate feedback from the MedCab folks on this. Vassyana 17:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Makes perfectly good sense, really. --Kim Bruning 17:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Looking for input 

message: I believe [] should be closed as a bad faith submission. Specifically, the requestor's to "What would you like to change about that?" is bad news.
    For him to A) Stop being a dickweed, B) acknowledge that his edit is in the wrong, and C) stop reverting my edit to a page that's already rather piss-poor. A) might be genetic, so I'll be happy with B) and C), and will settle for C) alone. 
In closing it I would specifically refer to that comment. I would also suggest the user solicit a WP:3O since it is a conflict between him and one other editor. Thoughts? Vassyana 17:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You could ask the person personally, maybe they need a mediator to act as a filter eh? :-) --Kim Bruning 23:13, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Close a case? 

message: I think there should be some templates for articles which has nominated for Mediation cabal like what we have in the case of FA articles or AfD.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 17:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Template for Articles

message: Community enforceable mediation has entered a 90 day experimental phase.  Other mediation venues often get backlogged so mediators may wish to refer some cases to this new program.  Suitable cases would have:
*Two disputants.
*No allegations of sockpuppetry.
*Aspects of user conduct/policy violations overlapping the content dispute.
*Basically mature and reasonable participants.
Regards, DurovaCharge! 04:30, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a great idea. Good luck! Vassyana 10:12, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:CEM|Community enforceable mediation]] experimental rollout 

message: I am working on a WikiProject proposal for "reviewers". That is people who actively contribute to editor reviews, requests for feedback and the like. Any feedback on the idea would be welcomed. Vassyana 10:14, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Feedback requested 

message: What's going on with this one?  Eagle 101 hasn't been responding to any questions about it.  Is it dead or waiting on something?  --Minderbinder 15:22, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No I have been distracted. In addition I was waiting on one participant to join. I'm sorry. —— Eagle101 Need help? 15:52, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem, we were just wondering where things were at.  Who are you waiting on?  --Minderbinder 21:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-03-13 Electronic Voice Phenomenon]] 

message: Big case, and I'm already overextended as is. Heeeeelp! :-)  --Kim Bruning 02:16, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I could really use some help here. --Kim Bruning 21:59, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added the pages to my watchlist. Addhoc 22:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  *phew* Thank you very much. ^^;; --Kim Bruning 22:34, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-03-25 Global warming]]

message: Just in case someone is wondering why a brand new mediator has taken five or six cases in a 24-hour period- I'm just pruning the inactive ones for the most part =P --Moralis (talk) 00:01, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool. --Kim Bruning 21:03, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  FYI 

message: May occaisionally snarf some simple cases off the queue and lighten our workload, hopefully. Do keep an eye on if things are going ok, since they are still pretty new. --Kim Bruning 21:03, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editor Assistance 

message: Should we have a #MedCab IRC channel, for easy exchange of advice and opinions on open cases? Would mediators other than myself use such a resource? Would users potentially use it as a means of contacting us? --Moralis (talk) 16:01, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: #wikipedia-medcab. Before that it was simply in #wikipedia. Medcab existed on irc long before it existed on wikipedia. :-) (the "cabal" in the name is partially a play on "irc cabal" :-P) --Kim Bruning 16:05, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  IRC? 

message: The project page says "Put the MedCab request tag on the talk page of the dispute.". What if the dispute is over material on another user's talk page? Andy Mabbett 19:51, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Put the tag on the user talk page.  --Ideogram 21:18, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: From where it is likely to be immediately deleted. Andy Mabbett 21:21, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That doesn't matter.  What matters is you can click on the preloaded request page link there to file the appropriate request.  --Ideogram 21:41, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  User-talk-page disputes 

message: The page nicely explains why it has __NOTOC__, but is there any point in having __NOEDITSECTION__? — Sebastian 00:50, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Possibly to discourage editors from attempting to add their cases manually. Addhoc 13:52, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have a strong opinion about this.  Put it back if you like.  --Ideogram 14:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question about this page: Why NOEDITSECTION? 

message: Hello everyone,
I have initiated a case Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2007-02-10_Boris_Stomakhin since February and only one mediator so far appeared. Please anyone come and be the mediator. Vlad fedorov 17:07, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is already one mediator actively mediating this case. That's all you need. Considering that we have six cases needing mediators, I hope that any other prospective mediators will rather sign up for those cases. — Sebastian 00:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think either is fine. More mediators on one case has merits (and possibly actually might netto reduce the backlog faster). But a single one will work in a pinch. --Kim Bruning 03:02, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You don't understand. We indeed have one mediator. But mediator requested the opinion of other second mediator. So the whole case gone stalled, because of him. We need mediator!!!. Vlad fedorov 04:15, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry about the misunderstanding. It does indeed appear as if the mediaton has not moved forward since February, although I don't see that request. I will ask about it on the mediator's page. — Sebastian 04:56, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mediator desperatey needed. Case needs more opinions. 

message: We really need to get people to stop doing this.  --Ideogram 21:19, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editing the cases page 

message: It's not a good idea to encourage anyone to edit this, since there are specific conventions as to which and how many cases should be added.  --Medcabemail 21:36, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Open tasks 

message: Please note that we usually recommend that discussion take place on the article talk page, in which case placing the template there as well is redundant.  Note that I do not necessarily believe we should not use the template, but this is one possible objection you should be aware of.  --Ideogram 09:58, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for the heads up. I am taking that into consideration and chaning my edit to reflect your concerns. Vassyana 10:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  recent edit