Wikipedia talk:Mediation Committee/Archive/6

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! 15:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:CEM|Community enforceable mediation]] experimental rollout 

message: I'm not sure if this is the right place to ask, but the WWII mediation is not going so well.  Could someone from the committee take a look, please? Haber 21:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm recused in this case, so I couldn't help. However, may I ask what your concerns are? If you do not wish to state so publically, I suggest emailing ^demon, the MedCom chairperson. Cheers, Daniel Bryant 05:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The mediator disappears for long periods of time. Haber 11:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WWII mediation 

message: There has been an ongoing debate on the Northern Ireland article's talk page for about six months now. The issue had come up before that too. In centres on what, if any, flag should be used in the infobox. I just want to get an opinion on whether this is worth requesting formal mediation for. All parties have made their points over and over, without getting anywhere. I suspect that if mediation is initiated this will just happen again. I'm also told that Arbcom will most reject it as a content dispute. Any guidance would be appreciated. Stu ’Bout ye! 11:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Northern Ireland]] infobox debate

message: Mr.Z-man, who is not listed as a member of the Committee, has
*declared himself as taking a case
*declared himself qua mediator as favoring one of two sides
—SlamDiego 03:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well he's right.  That case is a mediation cabal case.  Mediation cabal is a different organization which is volunteer based.  Mediation commitee is a closed system which is more formal. jbolden1517Talk 10:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What th—? 

message: I don't know if you want to use them, but I've just created some templates for you guys to properly close nominations for mediators.
* - for the top of successful noms.
* - for the top of unsuccessful noms.
* - for the bottom of all noms upon closure.
If you want to use them then go ahead, if not, it's no big deal. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Ryan. I would like to see them used, personally. I did some minor tweaking on the wording, but overall, very good :) Cheers, Daniel 11:26, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  MEDCOM nomination templates 

message: I don't know if it's something wrong with the bot, but it left two identical messages of a mediation being closed on my talk page. Just wanted to let you know. Parsecboy 12:26, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a problem which has reared its' head every now or then, and which I fix onwiki whenever I see it (you beat me to removing the duplicate notice on your talk, but I did the rest). I'll ask around and see what's going on. Cheers, and thanks for your comment, Daniel 09:21, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  MediationBot1 

message: I was moved to the Mediators Emeriti page about a year ago, and since then I have been enjoying my retirement. According to the various edit counters, though, this month has been my most active month of editing ever and I feel like my Wiki-time isn't being used as efficiently as it could be. As such, I have listed myself as an active mediator and I am ready to fill any role needed. Andre (talk) 02:45, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, there's some fantastic news :) Daniel 03:42, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seconded  welcome back! ~ Anthøny 15:18, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reactivating myself 

message: Recently, MediationBot1 has been sending mediation notifications to User:Example , which is not a real account (it exists, but it's not an active user). This is probably due to Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Sample listing that account by default, which means that in malformed cases like Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Evan_Dobelle (the case that triggered the posts in question), it may remain listed or even be the only user listed. Could whomever is currently maintaining the bot please see to it that it doesn't send needless messages to this account? — Gavia immer (talk) 19:34, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's odd; I'll drop a line on the Mailing List, and see what can be done. Thanks very much for taking the trouble to let us know! Cheers and regards ~ Anthøny (talk) 19:51, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:MediationBot1|MediationBot1]] notifying [[User:Example]] 

message: Whoever is running this bot, it is spamming my talk page. Please stop. Crum375 20:21, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Discussion is in place to attempt to resolve MediationBot's incorrect running; until such discussions lead to an adequate resolution, I will block the Bot from running ~ Anthøny (talk) 20:34, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem has resulted from the deletion and undeletion of the casepage for the mediation in question. Apologies for the nuissance. WjBscribe 21:14, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have unblocked the bot - I'm not convinced that there's a real problem here (the bot's been active for several months (more than a year?) and this has never been an issue before), and tend to agree with WJBScribe's analysis.  The bot wasn't designed to deal with case pages being repeatedly (un)deleted, and, to be absolutely frank, I won't be changing it to make it compatible with this sort of thing.  Martinp23 21:35, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spam 

message: Hello. I'm wondering whether it is normal for MediationBot to provide three notifications of a rejected case over the course of half a day. That seems excessive to me, and I wonder whether the bot is malfunctioning or whether I need to do something to stop the notifications. Thanks. --Tkynerd 17:50, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry about that. No, the Bot shouldn't do that. I'll look into and see what the problem is. WjBscribe 18:03, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for checking into this, and also for removing two of the notifications from my talk page. :-) --Tkynerd 18:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Three notifications? 

message: I spotted this debate where some editors suggest the MedCom is in need of reform. This may be worth discussing, and this talk page appears to be the most appropriate spot. >Radiant< 12:30, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the major problem with the people that were commenting was that they have no experience with MEDOCM or how it works and they fail to understand the process involved. There is nothing wrong with medcom and it does some great work, there's no point in fixing something that isn't broken. Ryan Postlethwaite 12:34, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Although MedCom is slightly bureaucratic, it is a net positive and I don't think it needs much reform. Andre (talk) 15:08, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

text: It really needs no reform, IMHO.  MedCom is trundling away as it always has - people seem to randomly decide that they don't like a particular group, for one reason or another (eg not being admitted, or falling foul of it), and take the move of MfD or whatever.  This, and the Wikipedia community's complete opposition to bureaucracy or (for want of a better term) separation of users through any voting process (other than, of course, RfA, which is generally a given for any sock that has been around 4 months) is frankly getting too much now, and is definitely causing my participation here to wane.  My personal feelings are that everyone who complains about bureaucracy or "power groups" on Wikipedia needs to open their eyes and see why they were necessary to start with, and remain necessary.  I think I need a wikibreak (again!). Martinp23 16:26, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reform? 

message: Just a thought. It seems like the "chair" covers most of the stuff, but I think it would take a lot of the work load off one person. CO2 22:09, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This issue was raised on the list a while ago. Some certainly saw a use for clerk(s), however it was felt that with a lot of maintenance tasks now done by an automated Bot that the workload of the chair had been considerably reduced. Indeed, unlike Essjay who shouldered much more of the admin burden at times, both his successors have found time to be available as mediators rather than simply handling admin responsibilities. Ultimately I think the discussions staled with an agreement that all Committee members should help out as needed (after all the chair's handling of these things is more the default position than one of authority). I rather feel that with the recent cabalism concerns raised by discussions here and at the MfD, that appointing a clerk or team of clerks might seem to make that worse rather than better. It also raises the difficulty that some acceptance/rejection of cases is based on mailing list discussions. I'm not sure granting non-mediator access to that list would be appropriate from a confidentiality point of view. If experienced people wish to help out with clerking in important process areas, my impression is that WP:RFCU has a greater need than we do (indeed my temporary addition of my name to the clerk list has already lasted longer than I originally anticipated)... WjBscribe 22:30, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We do not have any need for clerks at this time, as it is my role to do the limited amount of clerical work this page requires. Thanks for your offer, Daniel 00:25, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can't say I was offering, just a thought I had, since MedCom is suppose to be the sister committee to ArbCom, who have clerks... CO2 00:35, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is the sister-Committee, but we perform totally different functions, and ours are less process-exhaustive apparently. Daniel 00:51, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  MedCom Clerks