Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/2006 Archive

message: I would suggest that articles for which a request for mediation has been made should carry a note, e.g. , to make sure that interested parties can find the mediation process. I propose this because, from the cases I reviewed to get a better understanding for the process of the mediation cabal, in three current cases it seemed dubious if that was the case and in one case people where actually complaining about not have been made aware of it. Alternatively the  tag could be made a requirement for being accepted for mediation at all. The actual mediation could then have its own notice to let people know that, even for a discussion that has run into a deadend, it might be worthwhile to check the talk page again. --Fasten 18:33, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a good point. In that case maybe we can add it as a recommendation to submitters of mediation requests that the  template or a similar template should be on the page to inform people that there is a current discussion. --Fasten 09:59, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Promoting Discussion 

message: I just requested mediation and noticed that Step 1's "Click here" link opens up the edit box for Ye Olde Cabalists not the appropriate section: Send for the Cabal! Requests for cabal mediation.  I'm not sure if this is a known issue or not, thought you guys would like to know.  I'd change it myself but dunno how.  Duffer 17:42, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, I fixed the problem. It was an off by one bug (the section number is 9, not 8) and reference by name doesn't seem to work. --Fasten 18:21, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Whoops! *looks embarassed* Sorry, I did that by adding the "If you cannot edit Wikipedia" section without thinking. Especially silly of me since I was the one who initially wrote the request stuff! Thanks for fixing, Fasten; sorry for my stupidity, Duffer. :) Best regards, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 04:22, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Making a request for assistance

message: Greetings,  The mediation on Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/29_12_2005_Interstate_76_%28east%29 is at a halt because its initiator, User:Beirne has withdrawn from Wikipedia (see User talk:Beirne#Good_bye).  I am inclined to close the case.  Any disagreement?   SteveMc 22:44, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, if there are only two disputing parties and Beirne is one of them. This is just my opinion of course. Izehar 22:47, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There were a couple of other users who responded on the cabal page.  I will check with them as well.  Thanks, SteveMc 23:04, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Basically if there is still a dispute and willing people to enter mediation then you should continue; if neither exists, then close it. Best regards, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 18:53, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need input from other cabalists 

message: I think it'd be wise to change date format from the current "dd mm yyyy" to "yyyy-mm-dd".  The former is sort of made up, the latter is ISO 8601 standard.  Not a competition there, if you ask me.  Also the latter format has the advantage that when it is sorted lexigraphically it is sorted chronologically.  When the former is sorted, it just sorts by day.  Not very useful.  I'm posting here to get a consensus on this and if consensus is reached I'll change the "report a new case" section and the templates appropriately.  Thanks!  --Cyde Weys votetalk 17:41, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I was the one who implemented the date format; it is actually a US/UK difference, I believe, because in the UK we usually refer to dates as dd-mm-yyyy, not yyyy-mm-dd or mm-dd-yyyy (and, to me, seeing 01-04-2005 would mean 1st April 2005, but to most Americans it would mean 4th January 2005). I can't see us sorting the list, since if people follow the instructions and stick the template at the bottom of the page, it is already sorted in order. I can't really see the need to change it, myself; however, if you have a burning desire to do so, then by all means, change it. I am of the opinion that we should spend more time worrying about the actual cases and our mediation methods as opposed to being too concerned about the interface, when we aren't actually having any problems with it. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 17:06, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not just a US/UK thing.  The point of standards is so that everyone can understand a common format.  ISO 8601 is universally recognized as this format.  And the list is sorted when using Special:Allpages/Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal, for instance.  See how the cases are being sorted by day of the month (which doesn't make sense) rather than year, then month, then day, which would make it chronological order?  I'll make the changes.  It's not too hard.  --Cyde Weys votetalk 19:39, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changing date format 

message: I think that due to his proven sockpuppet farming activity we should hereby remove him from the Mediation Cabal; this sort of behaviour is unbecoming of mediators, and although he's indef blocked now I suggest we relieve him of his Cabal duties in case he should be unbanned. I actually never looked into his mediations before (and, indeed, I unwisely gave him an "award" for being a mediator, which I am somewhat embarassed about having done looking at the mediations he worked on - I merely did it in an effort of encouragement since he appeared to be flagging behind a bit). All of his cases need reassigning, and indeed someone would do well to review his past mediations, tidying up any damage (a few I looked at were pretty poor). Best regards, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 01:32, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you have any ideas regarding what form this process would take?  - FrancisTyers 23:08, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Originally we often tried to have at least 2 medcab members on any case. The mutual support makes the case seem a lot lighter, especially with a good humored wingmediator . In some cases it also allows decent quality control. This was especially apparent in situations where for instance bishonen and sam spade were (supposed to be) cooperating ;-) Kim Bruning 00:07, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:Bonaparte]] 

message: Since, looking more closely, there seems to have been deficiency in the cases this user handled, I think it would be best if we checked over the cases Bonaparte was involved in and took appropriate action where required. Below is a list of the "new version" cases he was mediator of, please sign off each case after you've checked over each, perhaps commenting on what state the cases were in.
Active cases
* 2005-12-27 Second Law of Thermodynamics Status set was "in mediation".
* 2005-12-29 Alpha Phi Alpha Status set was "in mediation, clarifications requested".
Closed cases
* 27 12 2005 Mark K. Bilbo Closed with status "case closed".
* 12 December 2005 List of Freemasons Closed with status "case closed - after accepting the introduction of the disputed paragraph".
Actually, this does highlight a problem that we haven't really thought of regarding the medcab, and that is one of quality control; we would do well to have some sort of quality checking process in place so that another cabalist checks each case at some point to make sure the mediator is half-sane. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 09:41, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you have any ideas regarding what form this process would take?  - FrancisTyers 23:08, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Originally we often tried to have at least 2 medcab members on any case. The mutual support makes the case seem a lot lighter, especially with a good humored wingmediator . In some cases it also allows decent quality control. This was especially apparent in situations where for instance bishonen and sam spade were (supposed to be) cooperating ;-) Kim Bruning 00:07, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quality check - List of cases Bonaparte has been involved in 

message: Greetings,
What should be done when the advice of the mediator is not followed?  I brought up the issue earlier on this page {here, now one of the users of that page is asking about abiding by the recommendations of the mediator (me) here. 
I think I can answer my own question, but I want to see what other think.  Here is what I think: Seems to me that since we are an informal mediation, and that we can be pulled into mediation by one side of the dispute, that our advice cannot be enforced.  The most we can do is recommend that the users to use Wikipedia enforcement policies.  It is not the responsibility of the mediator to do this.
Thanks, looking forward to your advice.  SteveMc 04:29, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a difficult question, because until comparatively recently we didn't actually have any cases which would necessitate enforcement to quite this degree. I would say the Mediation Cabal as a whole cannot enforce decisions, since we aren't arbitrators and don't order people to do anything; however, I suppose to a certain degree the level of involvement is up to the individual mediator. Probably I'd rather not make a firm decision on this, since this is to a certain extent a matter of mediator discretion; however, generally speaking, one can only advise mediation participants since otherwise our role would shift from mediation to arbitration. "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink." I think that otherwise if we did start imposing enforcement we would jeopardise firstly our informal nature, and secondly our committment to neutrality. All the best, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 09:46, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

text: People need to agree with each other on what to do. Your advice is unimportant in the end, it's the agreement between the two people that counts. That's the difference between arbitration and mediation. An arbitrator tells people "You Must Behave, I Have Spoken!" (you can actually hear the caps!). A mediator says "ok, so petey, you agree not to stuff beans up little angies nose again, and little angie? you've agreed with petey not to hit him over the head with that naughty stick again, right? are we agreed? good, now shake hands on it. goooood. you can go play now." (Note the lack of caps ;-) ) Kim Bruning 00:01, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Advice of mediation cabal not followed 

message: Hi -- just saw this "active discuss" template meant to be put on article pages. This is a bad idea; such templates IMO should only go on talk pages -- especially since what we're doing here is explicitly unofficial. Otherwise, get ready for people to make all sorts of templates to stick on articles! Sdedeo (tips) 01:33, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Active discuss" template

message: We've recently seen a rash of MedCab cases involving registered users versus anonymous users.  I'm thinking we should modify the MedCab instructions to prohibit people from filing MedCabs on anonymous users.  It's simply too hard to do, especially with users who have dynamically-assigned IPs.  I want to generate some discussion on this before I implement it, though, because I'm not sure if I've thought it all the way through yet.  --Cyde Weys 22:50, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure if we should prohibit people from filing requests on this, it might be worth discussing how best to deal with these particular kind of requests though. For example on Charlie Wolf, a request was filed regarding a dispute with an anonymous user, I went to mediate but it seems that the dispute has died down as the anon has left (at least for now). At least some of the disputes regarding anons have been just pure vandalism. But I'd hate to leave two people without mediation just because one refuses to make an account ;) - FrancisTyers 23:03, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dealing with anonymous users? 

message: After mediating a solution, it is rather annoying not to see it implemented! i.e., the final state of the article after everyone's gone home is the same as it was at the start. I suppose some people just like to argue for the sake of arguing, and once the conflict is removed, interest declines to zero. Sdedeo (tips) 23:40, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So, are you a cabalist or what? ;-) Be BOLD. Make the change they agreed on for them. Then dig a ditch and take cover! Kim Bruning 00:15, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oops, I did mention the medcab during the arbcom elections, didn't I? (ut oh) Kim Bruning 22:50, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: kvetch, complain

message: I wonder if people are still doing it? When there's a situation, just join the conversation on the talk page and be your sane, conciliatory self. Try and get things done and gain concensus in a friendly manner (but since you don't have any interests either way, there's no hurry or need to push it. Just relax and sort of show you're relaxed). Typically that's enough to kill a lot of problems right there, with no further work needed. Try for concrete solutions, where actual edits are made to the page that don't get reverted. 
Kim Bruning 00:21, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wildcat mediation? Sure, I thought I invented the term! Glad to know other people are doing it :) - FrancisTyers 01:21, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yeah, it's all common sense, mostly :-) Kim Bruning 01:33, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wild mediation 

message: You wish! The case is closed when the participants have agreed not to fight, or better yet, when they've agreed to stick their energies into something productive.
The case closes when they're shaking hands, or if you've managed to go "Look! Shiny!" and they're actually off editing the shiny and forget all about you ;-)
Finally, don't expect a single case of shaking hands to do it. In fact, count and build on it. Get people to agree on something small first. They can always come back if things are still too strained. If they do come back, just get them agree on another small thing. Many pennies make a dollar. :-)
Kim Bruning 00:36, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "I declare this case closed!" 

message: So I thought I'd just dive into some mediations today. But on my first sample,
in half of the mediations I was "locked out". The mediator was doing all kinds of formal stuff that I dare not touch. The other half were already finished for some definition of, I guess. (But no one marked them so I could easily figure which was which)
Also somewhere along the way, case descriptions have grown a little past 2 lines. :-P
Soooo, it's usually a good idea for mediators to cooperate on cases. Many hands make light work! :) If you'd like me (and by extention other folks) to help out with your mediation, be sure to keep it informal and lightweight, and possibly at the article talk page or what-have-you, so that random bystanders can just pop in and help out, without it being at all awkward. :-)
(In fact, make sure to (ab)use the bystander effect as much as possible! Recruit   people into helping you. That way they pick up the tricks and will be able to look after themselves after a while :-) )
Kim Bruning 13:09, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ps. If you have a case you're working on and are kind of stuck, and you've kept it open like suggested above, drop me  a note on my talk page, I'll come over and take a look! :-) (Alternately, leave a note for other declared cabal members above, or here on this talk page, or ask friends, or come on irc)  Kim Bruning 13:11, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Assisting with mediations 

message: Okay, maybe a Yank isn't allowed to say that but I have so live with it!
Kim contacted me with an urgent plea about MedCab and after mulling for sometime and succumbing to a type of persuasion that only Kim can provide (no, no favors were provided, get your mind out of the gutter) I decided to take over as MedCab Coordinator, or Grand Poobah if you will. So, here I am.
===First Things First===
In all seriousness (which shouldn't happen around here very often) Nicholas will be sorely missed, he did a lot of great work and I am sad to see him go.  I have posted a plea for him to come back on his talk page, I hope he will some day soon.  I'll even let him share the Grand Poobah Chair (there, made it funny, now happy).
===Second Things Second===
As my first act, I have archived this talk page.  Sheesh you guys have been rambling on.  This is an example of being bold and I like it.  The way to the heart of any Grand Poobah is to embrace the trifecta of which BE BOLD is one.  We need some boldness here.  That's what I hope to interject.  Why do we even have a page as silly as "Mediation Cabal" with WP:TINMC as the shortcut?  Why?  I'll tell you, let me think of the reason first though....
Oh wait, I remember.  See, when Kim and I founded this thing we wanted to have something simple to help work out disputes before they get blown up into nuclear war (see also arbitration).  One of the things that we believe leads to nuclear war is getting all caught up in one's own argument and then the policies and procedures of making that argument.  And then the policies and procedures for making the policies and procedures for making the argument.
Wait....I'm not doing this very well.  Okay, look, if you've ever been to court you know what I mean.  People get all dressed up (well, most of the time) and there's a judge with a robe and a big hammer thingy that he slams when he doesn't like what someone says.  It's all up tight.  We think this is the #1 reason why it's tough to get to truth in a courtroom (besides the lawyers).
Anyway, we like to keep things a bit goofy and light because it disarms people, takes the grave seriousness out of thing and encourages people to relax.  That's the idea anyway.  Now, if you know me at all you know I can be serious as a heart attack when I want to be (see also Grand Poobah's block log) but the idea is you give thing a chance to be light and workable and not up tight, stale, and stagnant as a polyester leisure suit.  That stuff sucks to just be plain honest.
===Cabal Goings On===
I've been keeping an eye on things although not participating.  I've archived a lot of discussion not because it was bad but because this page was too dang long.  I think folks have meant well but we don't want this to get all bogged down with process and procedure like I said above.  That's what MedCom is for (well, we hope they don't get bogged down but they do).  So, I'm going to sit back for a bit but I reserve the right to BE BOLD and change some stuff in how we do things to make it easer.  I think Nicholas did a great job, there's nothing wrong with organization of the front page, that's important.  But we can't get so caught up with organization that we don't help people.  Savvy?  Or do I have to whip out some Grand Poobah whoopass for ya?
===One More Thing.....===
I'd like to introduce the new Mac Pro.....
No, seriously, here's the one more thing.  I set up the Coordinator's Desk so that folks can leave me messages and missives about getting bent and stuff like that there.  I'll also throw up some secret plans (ideas) from time to time.  So, feel free to post stuff over there.
Well, that's it, I'm glad to be here to help out and let's cabal again just like we did last summer!!
--Wgfinley 04:33, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The King is Dead, Long Live the King! 

message: I'd like to introduce the new Mac Pro.....
No, seriously, here's the one more thing.  I set up the Coordinator's Desk so that folks can leave me messages and missives about getting bent and stuff like that there.  I'll also throw up some secret plans (ideas) from time to time.  So, feel free to post stuff over there.
Well, that's it, I'm glad to be here to help out and let's cabal again just like we did last summer!!
--Wgfinley 04:33, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: One More Thing.....

message: I have posted Alternative Dispute Resolution as a proposed group at Wikipedia:Wikiproject/List_of_proposed_projects#Alternative_Dispute Resolution.  The project would improve/create articles in the main namespace relating to negotiation, conciliation, facilitation, arbitration and other alternatives to litigation.  Thought the users at mediation cabal might be interested.  Lets see if it gains sufficient participatants and go from there.--Edivorce 17:29, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like a good idea Edivorce, you might also want to check out Wikipedia:Mediation (2005) for some ideas, it's something Kim and I put together when coming up with TINMC and could stand to see the light of day.  --Wgfinley 01:20, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Wgfinley.  I'd be happy to review the article.  The proposed project is directed toward articles on dispute resolution IRL.  I hope this topic will be of interest to members of the cabal.--Edivorce 16:20, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed Project: Alternative Dispute Resolution

message: Would anybody be against having a TINMC userbox? I have no time to make one right now, but the text could be something along the lines of 'There is no Mediation Cabal. However, if there was one, this user would be a member.' Firestorm 21:58, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see the benefit really :) You could just write it out on your user page, but then I'm generally against user boxes, so feel fee to disregard my opinion. :) - FrancisTyers 22:06, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Hmmm, due to the fact that userboxes are a hot topic, it might not be diplomatic. Especially if you get asked to mediate in a userbox dispute ;-) Kim Bruning 02:44, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

text: If you wanted me to say "because you are a wise poobah, as well as grand", you have another thing coming. :-P Kim Bruning 04:23, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Userbox 

message: Just wanted to encourage people to use the "strikethrough" done by blah when updating article mediation status, instead of deleting what was written previously. That way people can see both when the case was taken up, and when it was resolved. (As a side note, it's very satisfying.) Yours, Sdedeo (tips) 06:00, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: use of strikethrough

message: I see that the format around here has been changed... I requested mediation back in November and Happycamper helped to referee. The problem has remanifested itself, and I need to cite my old request for mediation from the cabal to document that I (we) have attempted to previously exhaust all available remedies in our dispute. However, when looking in my contribution history the request is now gone and there don't appear to be any archives or history @ the cabal. Any advice on how I can find my old request? Cyberdenizen 17:08, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Have you checked the archives? Volume 1; Volume 2. If you can tell us the title of the article or mediation, we can look around! Sdedeo (tips) 19:13, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: History?

message: I put in a request two weeks ago.  How much longer will it be before I can expect some guidance ?  The editor I'm discussing with won't use talk pages, and I don't know where else I'm supposed to find help. Sandy 00:26, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Backlog?

message: I seem to have trouble making this a formal case, I've succeeded in step one but not step two.
I note that PJM has declared himself part of an anti-vandal group. However, my edits were not vandalism (they gave further details as to why historians argue his sleeping with men was common - historical perspective shows that there was a shortage of housing on the frontier, eg the then "Northwest" where Lincoln lived. This was also the case during WWII, where people, generally shift factory workers, often rented "hot beds" - literally sharing a bed during different shifts of the day, due to the housing shortage.) 
PJM, according to his talk page (Note #5 - "Vandalism"), has jumped the gun before, reverting perfectly good edits. He may have a bias towards any edit without a full summary. He did not try to discuss this with me, just left a message stating that my edit was "determined to be unhelpful" and was reverted. Apparently he did not even read it. Nor did he look at my log to see where I reverted vandalism on Diane Keaton, NPOV on Julian Lincoln Simon, Sea Org, etc. 
Is this member and the anti-vandal group aware of the standards for edit disputes, eg "assume good faith" and attempt to discuss disagreements? I did not post on his talk page as he had already given me the equivalent of a "first strike", and if he jumps the gun on edits, I am concerned he might also jump the gun on calling "troll" or further punishing me in some way. Again, I don't believe he read the edit I made. 67.10.133.121 22:38, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested help re: Abraham Lincoln and PJM

message: Sorry all, been very hectic in RL lately and I haven't been on much.  Things seem to be clearing up and I hope to do some editing tomorrow of which getting at the requests will be top priority.  Seems folks have been stepping up and taking cases which is good, let's keep it going.  --Wgfinley 23:12, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sorry For My Break 

message: Is the use of the  template on WP:MEDCAB an acceptable use of the template when the list of incoming cases is getting too long? --Fasten 11:48, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is rather used for asking help to the WelCom members. --Neigel von Teighen 20:08, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Before we leave the 10 day estimated response time I'd rather give it a try. --Fasten 12:20, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is not a good idea as it triggers an alert every 3 minutes on the IRC channel #wikipedia-bootcamp --Fasten talk|med 13:43, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help me template 

message: Dear Cabalists:
I have taken the decision to return to Wikipedia, and indeed have risen from the wikidead, so to speak, on my own volition. I made my decision to leave Wikipedia whilst in one of my depressive states of mind, and in the interim month since my self-immolation my state of mind has improved considerably. I recognise it was grossly unfair of me to abandon my duties here on Wikipedia, and to immediately place upon Kim and Wgfinley the onus of ensuring the duties of my medcab position were fulfilled. I wish to take this opportunity to apologise most humbly for abandoning Wikipedia, this initiative, and my colleagues during my lack of self-control and perseverance. I feel that, because of my unreliability, it would be unwise for me to assume my previous position as manager of the medcab; however, I might - if I may - return to a reduced degree here, as a mediator, and perhaps do some degree of coordination. My only concern is, however, that I am not sure whether I may relapse into my old state of mind, and as a consequence it is unwise to rely upon me to any major degree.
I would like to thank all of the hard-working mediators and management here at the Mediation Cabal for their diligent and most valuable work. I hope to be able to assist in perhaps getting things running a little more smoothly, because in my absence the workload has increased almost threefold; I hope I shall be able to tackle something.
Yours, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 00:16, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  My self-resurrection 

message: I see SiP has added herself to the list, at the top no less. I don't know if anyone patrols the list at all, but my experiences with SiP have been negative, and I wish to alert the cabal to this. See Wikipedia talk:Three-revert rule for more William M. Connolley 09:41, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  StrangerInParadise 

message: Humour. Humour is a characteristic by no means possessed by everybody. Third party responsibilities are exacting and un-remitting. The peacekeeper therefore needs to cultivate a sense of humour, as much as he needs to be possessed of good humour. The first ensures that he can employ a light touch when a light touch is needed to ease an otherwise intractable situation; it helps him to relax and make others relax at times of stress and high tension. Good humour makes for good working relations, because a man of good humour is accessible and approachable — a quality of considerable importance in a peacekeeper when negotiating with the respective parties in a dispute.
... the third party's weapon is not a self loading rifle but his ability without force or threats to persuade both sides to avoid violence and settle their differences by peaceful means ...
Both from The Peacekeeper's Handbook. :) Hopefully they'll make you smile too. - FrancisTyers 15:16, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some quotes that made me smile 

message: Hello all: I've recently started the Wikipedia:Advocate Cabal, because it looked to me that the AMA was a bit on the broken side and some sort of informal initiative might be able to plug the gap until they've fixed their various administrative issues. I notice that the mediation backlogue here is very long, and I wonder if perhaps some cases which could in fact be better served by an advocate could be directed towards the new initiative. In addition, advocates are very welcome for the new initiative, although if you do volunteer for both projects you should be sure that you won't advocate cases you're mediating or vice versa to prevent conflict of interest. Many thanks, and best regards, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 04:30, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My opinion is, feel free to mention the Advocate Cabal on the page of the Mediation Cabal (somewhere in the header, around the link to WP:3O would be my suggestion) and explain when to go to the Advocate Cabal and when to apply here. As for moving existing cases to the Advocate Cabal: Contacting the submitter and asking vim to move a case to the Advocate Cabal shouldn't be a problem and moving cases without contacting the submitter would be dubious. --Fasten 12:18, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Advocate Cabal 

message: Here is a case where a mediator is not impartial but isn't (at least not yet)
willing to step down or assume an impartial position. The case itself is not
particularly important but the Mediation Cabal has no way to deal with the
problem. The Mediation Cabal assumes the authority to assign a single person
to the position of mediator; to make that meaningful the Mediation Cabal cannot
recommend to ignore and work around mediators, as that may lead to difficult
situations with more than one mediator. I guess we need at least a recommended
procedure on how to remove mediators from the office when it is obvious that they
are not accomplishing anything or are not even trying. Please don't assume that
the example case is already requiring action, this is merely a theoretical
escalation of the example case. --Fasten talk|med 19:09, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mediation Cabal Re-assignments 

message: I made a template Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Opentask and put it as a reference in Template:Opentask:
--Fasten 18:50, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opentask 

message: The Mediation Cabal
You are a disputant in a case listed under Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases.
We invite you to be a mediator in a different case.
Please read How do I get a mediator assigned to my case? for more information.
SteveBot (talk) 07:30, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  New flyer 

message: In case anyone's interested here's a little perl script I wrote that will prompt you for all the information the Mediation Cabal evidence template requires and generate a template for you automatically. -- noosphere 06:28, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mediation Cabal evidence template generator 

message: Dear Cabalists: Just a quick note to say that I'm returning to the Mediation Cabal as coordinator, based on Wgfinley's assent for me to do so, and I look forward to coordinating this initiative once again and (hopefully) get this case queue moving a bit more. Well, erm, it looks like there's a lot of work that needs doing, and I hope within the next few days to work on streamlining and speeding up how we do things here. I note quite a few things have changed since I last saw the medcab. I hope that we can try to shift this backlogue rapidly, as it looks like although mediation is taking place some cases have gone a bit on the "stale" side, that is, the sensible time for mediation has passed. I'd like to thank Wgfinley for his work during my temporary absence, and also to the fine mediators here at the Mediation Cabal for their hard work. If anyone has any questions or concerns please do drop me a talk page message. Best regards, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 00:08, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yay! :)) Welcome back! - FrancisTyers 00:27, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Welcome back. --Fasten 14:15, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Announcing: My return as coordinator 

message: There have been a few complaints about unskilled mediators. It may be a good idea to provide some guidance to new mediators by assigning senior mediators on request. (Also hinted at in "Kantian guilt?"). I would recommend to add a further table column to the assignment table (senior mediator) and assign senior mediators in case of complaints or on request by disputants or inexperienced mediators. --Fasten 14:15, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Senior mediators 

message: : It'd be wrong to say to disputants that one could only make an application if you can invite someone to mediate  
Actually the idea wasn't to demand that from anybody but to make the Mediation Cabal a process that needs little support from permanent members. If all disputants are invited to mediate the chances are high that a sufficient amount accept the invitation and all cases can be dealt with even when about one third (estimated) of the submitters are not willing to mediate.
That would allow to put the volunteer effort of the Mediation Cabal into providing senior mediators. --Fasten 19:32, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the sentiment behind the idea, Fasten, but the problem is that I'd rather not encourage all and sundry to become mediators for the reason that mediators have to have a special inclination towards neutrality and common agreement. Roping disputants in as mediators has the serious problem in my view for the simple reason that those involved in disputes are more likely to be individuals who do not appreciate the finer nuances of communication, and common resolution of difficulties - because after all, if they were capable as mediators, they wouldn't need to be requesting assistance from the Cabal; they could have resolved it themselves already. Although membership of the Mediation Cabal is open to any and all volunteers, a thought must be spared to ensure that we are getting the right type of people volunteering - it seems that drawing mediators from those undergoing disputes is too apt to produce quality control issues in mediation (which is something I'm looking into, and will publish an analysis on this talk page shortly). Best regards, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 20:40, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Have to agree with Nicholas here. Sdedeo (tips) 23:34, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of invite mediator part of request process 

message: Hi all -- I'm back on wiki and back on medcabal after a wikibreak. It's fantastic to see how much work people have done, and it looks like nearly all the cases have been taken up. Way to go! Sdedeo (tips) 23:34, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: hey gang

message: Would the case described in User:SPUI/Curpsbot be within the scope of the Mediation Cabal? --SPUI (T - C - RFC - Curpsbot problems) 03:17, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You stated that you didn't get a reply but you did get a reply: User_talk:Curps#Please_stop_assuming_bad_faith. If Curps agrees that you two do have a dispute and need mediation you can file a mediation request but I suspect that ve would disagree with this view. If you think ve is abusing privileges you can file a user conduct RFC concerning administrator privileges or contact the Association of Members' Advocates. --Fasten 11:59, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Possible mediation case?

message: I've added a "review" column to the assignment table. It means that a mediator who has reviewed a case can offer a second opinion on the case to any interested party. It can also be used to put a second mediator on a case when there is a reason to doubt that the assigned mediator is able to handle the case alone (e.g. when ve is new to wikipedia). The second mediator can review the mediation while its going on and provide assistance. This second interpretation is just an offer how to introduce quality control to mediation cases with inexperienced mediators. --Fasten 14:59, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Review column 

message: I just saw that User:Ellis2ca has been assigned as a mediator? Are you aware that he is in the middle of an edit war? He is not too up on how wikipedia works, and usually is not logged in when he makes edits, but here is a recent diff  when he did happen to be logged in. He seems to usually edit from this IP.
If I don't hear from anyone on this soon, I'm going to take his name off -- he does not seem to be an appropriate person right now to bring in as a mediator and it doesn't appear as if he volunteered to do this.
Sdedeo (tips) 18:48, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, I think - not really suitable mediator material, doing a cursory investigation of contribs. I'll remove him from the list and leave him a note. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 19:34, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: woah, woah

message: I've created a new template for putting on dispute participant talk pages, to facilitate the process of requesting people to take part in a mediator (in keeping with the orange box header style; I'm not sure where we arrived at this style for the medcab, but I thought I'd go along with it anyway). One can use the following syntax:
: 
and stick it on a dispute participant's talk page. It uses an includeonly hack in such a way as the template is self-signing, so that one's sig is within the div box. MediatorName is whatever first name the mediator would like to be referred to, just for friendliness; casename is the medcab case identifier for the mediation case (such as "2006-01-16 Deathrock & Deathrock fashion" for the Deathrock case). It automatically uses the page name from which to get the username. Below is an example use of it, using this case as an example. I hope this is of use to someone. Best regards, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 23:52, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-01-16 Deathrock & Deathrock fashion
I'd like to invite you to join this mediation to try to get this dispute resolved, if you wish to do so; note, however, it is entirely your choice whether or not you participate, and if you don't wish to take part in it that's perfectly alright. Please read the above request and, if you do feel that you'd like to take part, please make a note of this on the mediation request page. If you have any questions or queries relating to this or any other dispute, please do let me know; I'll try my best to help you out. Thank you very much. Best regards, NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 23:52, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

text: The template refers to Dear . --Fasten 10:39, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for participation template 

message: User:StrangerInParadise is listed as a cabalist, but see this RfA: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Guanaco%2C_MarkSweep%2C_et_al, where "StrangerInParadise is disruptive" and "StrangerInParadise is uncivil" were passed unanimously, and "StrangerInParadise placed on personal attack parole" was as well. Perhaps someone closer to the core of cabal power could remove him from the list for cause? Sdedeo (tips) 22:00, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think anybody has the authority to prevent vim from putting his name on the list if he chooses to do so. --Fasten 13:56, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Strangerinparadise

message: In an attempt to reduce the backlog of the case list, I have sifted through the first twenty cases or so and have found a majority of them to have no activity for 3 months +. I made a note on those that showed inactivity for this time and I hope to have them declared closed if there are no objections. If these cases are still requiring mediation then there should be no problem in re-aquiring the case from the archive section afterwards. Cowman109Talk 03:29, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I award you a 15px Barnstar  for cleaning up the attic ;-) --Fasten 14:18, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Excellent, thanks! :) - FrancisTyers 14:23, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Do you think we need to take Barnstars more seriously and, maybe, draw one for the Mediation Cabal? --Fasten 19:27, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reducing Backlog 

message: I have removed this suggestion:
#Putting up an  notice on the disputed page(s) can be helpful to alert everybody do the need to check the talk page, if the mediation is taking place there. This notice is especially useful when anonymous users are editing the page or a large number of users is potentially interested in the outcome.
because it is problematic. In particular, we in general do not like to clutter up article pages with templates -- especially templates like this one, made by a particular informal wikipedia group. Yes, it would be nice if we could put a big banner saying "see the talk page", but we have a small banner already: the "discuss" tab. When there are special things going on, we still don't like article templates: see, for example, . The only time a template should be used is when there is an explicit disagreement over the content of the article that can be named -- in which case it is likely that  or whatever is already up there. Sdedeo (tips) 01:38, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I made that template because I have seen a surprising number of cases where one party of the dispute was anonymous or did not participate in the discussion on the talk page. The reason for a special mediation template is that  may have been shown on the page in question for a longer time and a new template that signifies a new approach is a better invitation to anonymous editors to join the discussion. As the template is unusual it also has a higher chance to spark interest. I see this as a viable approach to contact anonymous editors before using . I have to admit the approach seems to have failed on its first application (on the Stuyvesant High School page) --Fasten 12:54, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, I have no use for it the way it is now. It defeats the purpose it was made for. My reason for putting it on article pages was to invite inexperienced, anonymous editors to join a dispute instead of changing the article. That seems more polite than an . Do you actually think it is require on talk pages? On talk pages I usually make a header "Mediation" and people are bound to notice it when they are used to reading talk pages.  --Fasten 14:56, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: template

message: And annoted in the edit summary. The biggest change is that mediators don't so much advise as that they mediate agreement. :-)
Kim Bruning 01:06, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed the wording very slightly. "issues" sounds better than "things", etc ... --Fasten 14:57, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It sounds better, abut means something else. I really mean things! :-) I should stop being so terse ^^;; Kim Bruning 15:29, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Why? The Mediation Cabal is entirely informal and by stating that the official mediation process is not followed here you are trying to introduce a rule. The wording that the official mediation process doesn't need to be followed doesn't try to impose restrictions on the reader, quite to the contrary, it stresses the liberty of the reader to follow the ideas of the official mediation process, if he or she chooses to. This being a list of suggestions and not a policy, not even an inofficial policy, the wording you suggest appears inadequate. --Fasten 14:13, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:   <Grin> What a great argument. I am momentarily at loss as to how to respond to that, at least without getting my own ideals in a twist. I admit to being out-cabaled :) Cool. Kim Bruning 19:42, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Made some changes