Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:30, 1 February 2007

• ]

New sections at bottom, please.

Archives
2005 Archive 2006 Archive (currently Jan - May) 2006 Archive 2 (currently May - Jul) 2006 Archive 3 (currently August)

The new case templates!

As some of you may have noticed, we have now implemented a template for cases that specifically allows the bot to do three things - it lists the category, lists the name of the mediator on the case page, and lists the status of the case as how you would like to say it. Here is how it works:

At the top of the page you'll see this:

{{Medcabstatus
|status = open
|article = 
|requestor = 
|parties = 
|mediators = 
|comment = 
}}

Status There are three options for status: new, open, and closed. These affect the listing of the case - new is in new cases of course, open goes into the open cases section, and closed simply delists the case (we're still not archiving cases yet, so they're hiding in the closed cases category).

Article Here you can list the name of the article, the source of the dispute. At the moment you just write the name of the article with ] around it, so you can list multiple links if needed. This does not affect anything, but just lists the name of the article at the top of the case page.

Requestor, here you can put the name of the requester - once again, it's just to make the top of the page look nice and organized.

Parties, here you list the parties, same as above.

Mediators, the mediators listing shows up on the case list. Preferably you could use the format {{user|username}}, but anything works.

Comment, this also shows up on the case list. If you feel it is necessary, please put a short comment here about the status of the case, such as needs new mediator, or waiting for parties to respond. This is entirely optional, however, though in some cases it is good to signal to other mediators that there may be some help needed.

And that's about it! Any questions? This should be implemented shortly into the case list, and the format of it is still changeable should any issues arise. Cowman109 20:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for putting this together; I really like the automatic mdoerator and status listings on the main page that this generates. Very nice. Mike Christie (talk) 14:27, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, dear, I didn't mention him - thank User:Ericj for all of this, as he's the mastermind behind the bot and the recent changes :D. Cowman109 14:59, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for mentioning me! I changed your information slightly, after your requests, so the ] is now needed in the article link. It makes it possible to list multiple pages, too. It doesn't matter if they're not linked, though. Tell me if there are any problems. --Ericj 22:20, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, thanks, Ericj; very nice. One enhancement occurs to me that would be handy; is it possible to have the display on the main page show the date of last update to the template or the case? Automatically, if possible. That way it would be possible to see cases that appear to have gone inactive, or at least where the mediation may have gone inactive. Mike Christie (talk) 03:41, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Ahah, Ericj actually brought up the possibility of getting some sort of color code system or something similar that could show case pages that were left unupdated, but I felt that when mediation occurs on the talk page of articles instead of on the case page, the information could be skewed. We'll see what others think, though :). Cowman109 03:46, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Is there any way to make the status box so it doesn't overlap other stuff on the case page? On my case, the box overlaps the first heading on the page, and the box reminding people about etiquette. --Aguerriero (talk) 01:41, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Hm, I tried moving it down below the header in preview and that seems to fix it, but I think that might also make it look worse in other cases if it's done that way - the text in the etiquette box still remains readable; it's just pushed to the side. We can always play around with the position though and see which works in all situations.. Cowman109 01:50, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Just add a bunch of <br> tags below the template, and it'll fix the format-vomit. --The Prophet Wizard of the Crayon Cake 20:49, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Assistance needed

I am taking an extended leave from Misplaced Pages immediately due to personal circumstances. I need someone to take over my one current case, at Yoshiaki Omura. The mediation is ongoing at Talk:Yoshiaki Omura/Mediation. The participants have been very civil and communicative, and I have just been guiding them through discussion each of their citations, which is where most of the contention lies.

No edit wars or personal attacks have surfaced, although just within the last few days another editor has come in and posted a large bit of text on the Talk page that I have not had time to fully read or understand. The editor also edited the article, and was reverted and referred to the mediation by another involved party. If someone can take this I would really appreciate it; I don't want to just leave them hanging. Please contact me ASAP if you can take it with any other questions (most information is on the mediation page) and I will post to the mediation page that I am leaving. --Aguerriero (talk) 21:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm seeing if I can help out the case, but I'm busy during weekdays so a more active mediator is still requested. Cowman109 13:34, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll take it. Misplaced Pages's False Prophet holla at me Improve Me 18:17, 16 September 2006 (UTC) sorry, I don't know what to do with it. Its not on a regular medcab page, and it is not going easy for me to take over. Sorry again, Misplaced Pages's False Prophet holla at me Improve Me 18:22, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-08-07_Yoshiaki_Omura :P. Cowman109 18:52, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll include this case in the open tasks section, if that's ok. Addhoc 13:19, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm workin on it - Che Nuevara 23:06, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Where's the backlog?

We have no new cases? How can that be? That boggles me :D. And hey, that rhymes - wee! Cowman109 21:35, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Request for help.

I recently took on a mediation case based at Talk:Conseil scolaire de district du Centre-Sud-Ouest, but am not getting anywhere. Both parties accept my mediation in principle, but maintain the other is entirely at fault and should stop making what they see as damaging edits. Every time I attempt to calm things down, another person posts inflammatory accusations, provoking fury from the other side. There seems little I can do. Should I close the mediation? Clearly there is a case here. Should I transfer it to the Mediation Committee? If so, how? Should I keep trying to engage with these editors, none of whom appears to be acting in bad faith? What should I do? Dev920 00:09, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I took a look at this when it was still in the new cases section and honestly, I'd have to advise they go to ArbCom. No, it's not pretty for either of them, but the dispute (which is basically namecalling, etc) will be settled. WP:RFAR has directions as to how to file a case, have one of them do it. :] Anyhow, that's what I'd suggest. Cheers. --Keitei (talk) 01:17, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Help!

Hello all – Real life suddenly decided to interfere with my Wiki-life, and I'm going to have to take a health break/family leave for an indefinite period of time. Because of this, I need someone to take over my one open mediation case at Misplaced Pages:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-09-12_Electrical_engineering_page. We had an automobile accident about 10 days ago, and some complications have developed because of it; also, a family member is hospitalized, and her needs take precedence over Misplaced Pages. I won't be back here full-time for at least two weeks, and the two parties to this mediation can't wait that long. I'm sorry to bail and run like this, but I also don't want to leave two people waiting on me for an indefinite period. Thanks very much, and I'll let you all know when I'm back, hopefully by the end of October. BaseballBaby 01:55, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I hope everything works out! I'll look into the case shortly. Cowman109 02:04, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I won't be able to look into the case due to family matters, so someone else will need to take the case. Cowman109 22:40, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I knew it!

There really is a cabal! --WikiSlasher 14:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Maybe that's what they want you to think. - Che Nuevara 17:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Who's they... --WikiSlasher 08:18, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Notification templates

I dont know if anyone has done this, but I created templates to place on user's talk pages and the talk page of the article itself.

This is the template for user's talk pages:

• {{User:Nwwaew/Mediation User Template|page-name|case-page-location}} ~~~~

where page-name is the location of the page in dispute and case-page-location is the location of the mediation case page.

This is the template for the article's talk page:

• {{User:Nwwaew/Mediation Page Template|case-page-location}} ~~~~

where case-page-location is the location of the mediation case page.

So far, the only problem I've noticed is that you have to put in the ~~~~ manually when you put the message on a page. Any comments? Nwwaew(My talk page) 22:27, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

You're supposed to have to put the ~~~~ in manually I thought - you do with most templates anyway --WikiSlasher 10:32, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Templates can add the markup: <noinclude><nowiki></noinclude>~~~~<noinclude></nowiki></noinclude>, which, ultimately ends up as ~~~~ on the page. Then when you save it, the server goes ahead and translates that into your signature. ~Kylu (u|t) 16:47, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Joining

Hello, I'd like to join the Cabal, and I've added the page to my watchlist. What else do I have to do? Is that it? I would appreciate some help; thank you in advance. | AndonicO Talk 13:31, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

You're going to find this a bit simplistic of an answer, but it's true: Find a case you're interested in, sign up as a mediator, and start. Really. I'd like to suggest reading over Misplaced Pages:Mediation Cabal/Suggestions for mediators first, but that's technically an optional step rather than mandatory. You can add your name to the list of mediators if you'd like, also. Just make sure you stay neutral during the mediation. Thanks! ~Kylu (u|t) 18:20, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Another mediator needed

Hello. I'm currently mediating the case on Ruckus Network (see Misplaced Pages:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-11-09 Ruckus Network and Talk:Ruckus Network/Mediation). However, I'm operating in a different time zone than the participants, so the discussion often heats up when I'm asleep. Thus, I'm requesting another mediator (preferably in the U.S./Canada time zones) to help out. Many thanks. Gzkn 01:08, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll look in on the debate and see if I can figure out what's transpired to this point. Please let me know anything that can help me better understand the current situation. →Bobby← 13:57, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

MedcabBot

Did MedcabBot just break? --Ideogram 03:02, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

No idea. They've approved my toolserver account but it's not active yet, and they haven't +bot'd KyluBot that I know of, so I can't kick on my botscript yet. Hopefully soon. ~Kylu (u|t) 03:09, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

It's definitely broken. I closed a couple cases half an hour ago and it has not updated. Who can fix it? --Ideogram 03:25, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Wolf needs to do it, but he's not on chat nor otherwise online, looks like. Mind leaving him a memo to fix the poor thing? ~Kylu (u|t) 03:44, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

It's back! --Ideogram 01:49, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

New cases page

I have created a new version of the cases page at Misplaced Pages:Mediation Cabal/Cases/New that removes the edit links, since the lists are not supposed to be edited directly. Please make sure MedcabBot can work with this new page and, if there are no objections, I will replace the old page. --Ideogram 06:33, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

That looks great! I have no idea whether that would work with the bot though - I would assume it would, but I'll see if I can hunt down Ericj and ask him. Cowman109 22:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it looks good. It will work with the bot, as long as it is at Misplaced Pages:Mediation Cabal/Cases and the comments (the BEGIN and END ones) are included. I'd say go ahead and replace it at your leisure. :] --Keitei (talk) 15:36, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Done. I'm crossing my fingers. --Ideogram 18:34, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Ataturk

Hello, I'd appreciate it if someone looks at the Ataturk request. The page is currently blocked for all editing and was the subject of an edit war. --AW 17:29, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I've volunteered to look at the dispute.Shawn Fitzgibbons 05:12, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Looking for ...

Where is the message to applicants suggesting they volunteer to mediate someone else's case? --Ideogram 06:47, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

MedcabBot

Is the MedcabBot having an oil change? Addhoc 13:02, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I think Kylu is switching around the script to user:Kylubot, so there might be some confusion on that end. Cowman109 15:08, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Seeking a second mediator

I just accepted Misplaced Pages:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-11-18 Singapore Changi Airport, but I'd like a second mediator to help me, to avoid any claims of bias. I'm Singaporean, but have never worked on the article in question or related articles, but I feel it would be better to have someone else helping. – Chacor 09:55, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Mediator never turned up

Misplaced Pages:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-11-03 Starwood Festival Can I not be afraid anymore since nothing is happening and the mediator never turned up? This mediation thing is not for real? What happens? Timmy12 22:22, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Do you feel this case still needs mediation or can I close it? Sorry about the mediator never turning up, this is an informal group and we don't have any control over individual mediators. Other than that, we are for real :-). If you have any other questions, feel free to ask me on my talkpage. --Ideogram 11:07, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Well today he turned up and asked one question. But people have asked a lot of questions since it openned. And I don't even understand the question he is asking. The person he is asking it to probably has given up as has everyone else. Could you check out the page and see what you think? Other interested people have left messages on his talk page and he never responded so they probably gave up too. Please check it out. It's important that this issue gets resolved. There are hundreds of articles involved on Starwood Festival, Association for Consciousness Exploration, WinterStar Symposium all by User:Rosencomet (who runs the festivals) with help from User:999, User:Ekajati, and User:Hanuman Das. Timmy12 17:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi, this case is still unresolved. Discussion between the parties in the absense of the mediator have not led to any consensus between the parties. --BostonMA 21:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Mediators list

Is it necessary to list Inactive mediators here? If we get rid of them, do we still need to put "Active" next to the remaining ones? I'm also thinking of going through the list to find out which are really still active and which just forgot to take their names off. --Ideogram 10:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Now I'm thinking of removing the list entirely. It will always be a maintenance hassle, and it serves no purpose but to advertise how many members our "nonexistent" cabal has. Scream now or I will be bold and you can scream later. --Ideogram 22:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I guess it's helpful in terms of finding people who may be interested in helping. It used to have more use when mediators were assigned to cases, but nonetheless before I had a big shiny coordinator button next to the name I sometimes found people saying 'Hey, I saw your name on the mediation cabal list, can you help me with X?'. So, the list does serve its purposes. As for inactive mediators, I guess it doesn't hurt or help, so I'm indifferent towards that. I guess it shows that people are still interested in mediating, but simply are not available to, so that could be good as well. Cowman109 22:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I just went through the list and looked at every user. I found twenty with enough recent activity to leave a note for requesting help, of which exactly four have taken up cases (and one has asked to co-mediate). This kind of ratio doesn't make for a very useful list, although I suppose it is better than nothing. The real question is, is this the right solution to this problem? If we want a way to find people interested in helping we need to make it their responsibility to keep it up-to-date instead of letting leftovers accummulate. --Ideogram 22:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Hm, good point. Perhaps in the interest of not hurting any feelings it would be better to ask users individually if they are still active in the interest of cleaning up the list. Cowman109 22:37, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Doing it once is bad enough, and I don't see anyone volunteering to keep doing it. --Ideogram 22:45, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Here's an idea. Make the list have only mediators who have actually mediated a case within the last month. --Ideogram 22:51, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

That smacks of regulation creep to me. A user should be able to regulate whether or not his name appears on the list unless there is some specific reason why it shouldn't. I don't think inactivity is a problem. Of course, if someone wants to be in charge of upkeep, they could go around asking people who are listed as inactive if they still want to appear on the list. - Che Nuevara 22:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

The list is unusable as it stands. I wouldn't have a problem with people putting their own name on the list if we could depend on them to remove it when necessary, but we can't. Having a bunch of names of people that don't respond to requests for help is a big problem. No one is going to upkeep it, are you? And if your name is on the list, do you want to be asked every month, or three months, or whatever, if you still want to be on the list? Do you have a solution that doesn't waste a bunch of time and effort? --Ideogram 00:54, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea why you call it regulation creep. Having a list at all is a regulation. Having active or inactive labels is a regulation. Calling people on the list "cabalists" is a regulation. If you don't want any regulations, get rid of the list entirely, or make clear it's a "vanity list" that anyone can scribble on which is entirely useless for asking for help. --Ideogram 01:01, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

If we deleted this list and made a new one labelled "Cabalists active in the last month" would that be regulation creep? --Ideogram 01:06, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

First, I didn't say I wanted no regulation, I said that I think this is unnecessarily much regulation. Some regulation is necessary; excessive regulation is counterproductive. Second, no, having a list is not regulation, since there is no requirement to be on the list, and calling people "cabalists" isn't regulation because, since someone doesn't actually have to be on the list to take cases, it doesn't really mean anything. So it's quite clear why I called it "regulation creep".

Why are you asking me if I am going to upkeep the list? You're the one who suggested an upkeep scheme. Are you going to do it? I don't understand your reaction to my comments. - Che Nuevara 01:12, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

(outdenting) I don't think you have thought about what I wrote. The most important question is, "What purpose does this list serve?" Cowman suggested it is a place to ask for help. I said I had examined every user on the list, asked twenty for help, and got four responses. This ratio indicates that the list is not serving that task.

If anyone can add themselves to the list, and dead names cannot be removed, what purpose does it serve? It would be a vanity list for people to make themselves feel good without having to do anything. I don't see it necessary for MedCabal to provide space for such a list. --Ideogram 01:33, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I understand that, but I'm not sure that having a fast guideline like "if you don't take a case in a month, you're off the list" isn't excessive. Who is going to monitor this? - Che Nuevara 01:41, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

There has to be some simple way to identify inactive/dead usernames. Monitoring of this kind would be a lot easier than any alternative I can think of. I was also thinking of writing a bot to do it. --Ideogram 01:45, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

How would this be monitored? By checking to see the last time someone edited a case page? - Che 01:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

We could use the close time of the most recent case. We would need to track down orphaned cases and close them manually, but we have to do that already. --Ideogram 05:26, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

A couple of questions. Keep in mind that I'm a mite bureauphobic, so I would tend to err on the side of flexibility:

1. Would the bot also automatically detect and re-add people who take new cases but aren't on the list?

   Yes.

2. Would the bot notify people that they've been removed from the list?

   No.

3. Would there be some way of re-adding one's self to indicate that you're willing to take a new case but there is no current backlog?

   No. I've never seen us have no backlog.

I'm not opposed to the idea in principle, and I wasn't even from the beginning; I'm just reserved, because regulation and automation tends to drastically reduce flexibility. I understand that this is not the end of the world, and that having a clean list of available mediators is important. I'm just being cautious. - Che Nuevara 05:41, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

As long as you are willing to discuss it with an open mind, I am fine. --Ideogram 05:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I think this is a reasonable idea. I think I would then rewrite the text about the list on the page to indicate "This is a list of people who recently mediated cases", because that's what it's actually there for, and not to imply that "This is a list of people associated with MedCab (if there is one)". This was my concern per my "regulation creep" comment earlier. - Che Nuevara 06:21, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think a bot can do this task. Due to the informal nature of what we do, and the lack of regulations on how mediators handle tasks, there are too many variables. For example, if you only looked at when my last mediation case closed or how often I edit case subpages, you would assume I am a largely inactive mediator. However, I take difficult cases that tend to last for weeks or even months, and I don't use the case subpage for discussion. So I might take a case and never revisit the list of active cases or the case subpage for much longer than a month. So a bot takes my name off the list - bad idea.

I don't think the point of the list is a place to ask for help. The place to ask for help is submitting a case, or the Cabal talk page. As with WikiProjects, the purpose of the "list" is to identify the size of the community involved in the project and to provide a medium for mass communication by coordinators if need be. No WikiProject prunes their member list by bot - those that do maintain them by removing inactive members do it manually because there is too much risk of error. --Ars Scriptor 15:07, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Ars Scriptor (can we still call you by you first name?) Firstly, when Ericj completes the change over to the new bot, then I don't think we should be continually asking him to modify it. Secondly, I think it would be more approprate to manually remove a few names that haven't taken a case in the last 6 months, than constantly adding and removing editors. Addhoc 16:56, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps anyone can add their name to the list, and the bot can automatically tag them as "recently active" or "recently inactive" as per the method described above. That seems logical to me, at least. - Che Nuevara 17:00, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

One of the reasons I joined Medcab was because it is so informal, and possibly doesn't exist. Isn't the point of this organization that anyone can be a mediator who has a good conscience and a knack for understanding disputes? does one have to be a member to mediate a dispute? So, in theory, there could be plenty of cabalists who aren't even listed but are very active, even if they don't ever visit the project page? Is it possible that some wikipedians are cabalists but have never even heard of us?My point is, a list of members (active or inactive) might not even be an accurate representation of participation, and perhaps a note of that should be made somewhere...Antimatter---talk--- 22:36, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

After thinking about it overnight, I am leaning back towards not having a list at all. There are many potential problems with a bot, and it is a lot of work. In its current form the list is basically useless. --Ideogram 22:53, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

This list is a terrible form of mass communication since every user has to be contacted individually. If we want mass communication we need a mailing list. --Ideogram 22:58, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

MedCabal is not like any WikiProject; for one thing it is considerably higher profile. And there is something inherently wrong with a group that denies its own existence having a participant list. --Ideogram 23:24, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

No more discussion? Can I delete the list? --Ideogram 03:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't actually have an objection to it, but you might want to field a few more opinions. - Che Nuevara 03:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll wait a few more days. --Ideogram 03:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Do you think you should run this by the other coordinators before deleting the list? Something else I thought of - when someone comes here to file a case, do we have more of a sense of credibility when there is a list of mediators? Would you file a case if there was no visible list of people who might take a case? --Ars Scriptor 04:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm putting it up for discussion here. I don't think the opinion of the coordinators carries any more or less weight than that of the ordinary members of the Cabal.

I really don't think having a list of people who aren't really involved just to gain some credibility is a good idea. Even if it helped (which I don't think it would) it would be false advertising. --Ideogram 13:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I disagree. I do think people who aren't taking cases should be deleted from the list, but I think a list of people who are currently working on cases should be there. Maybe a bot can be set up to see who has an active case, and place them on the list? --Ars Scriptor 16:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, this is what I was thinking about, but on second thought I'm not ready to write a bot yet. Also, they can always look at the case list to see who is actively mediating. --Ideogram 01:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I will agree with your assertion that no list is better than a useless list. Maybe would be better to delete until we can work out some useful way to do it. --Ars Scriptor 01:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey man, who's stepping on my toes?

Although I haven't requested any assistance on a case, It shows as requesting assistance from another mediator. What gives?SFinside 15:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Where do you see that? I only see a request for assistance on the one above yours. --Ars Scriptor 16:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I must be confused about the format of the page. My apologies.SFinside 16:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Please help me!

I was asked by someone to summarize Misplaced Pages:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-11-03 Starwood Festival which, I later learned, was the mediator that had been removed from the case. I felt it was strange that he should ask me. I did not understand his instructions and did not understand what was going on. His instructions were confusing to me, his signature went to a disguised addess, I did not know where my summary went. It turned out to be an Esperanza page; User:Geo.plrd/Esperanza. My ignorance -- also I am extremely anxious about this whole thing. And I am not good at technical things. The mediatior kept changing his signature to go different places. I was told not to worry about my summary or User:Geo.plrd/Esperanza's behavior but I did anyway.

Once User:Geo.plrd/Esperanza was off the case he offered to help User:Rosencomet, one of the parties in the unresolved mediation, fix up the articles in the unresolved mediation.

Now he is consulting with another party in the mediation about blocking me. He sent this message to User:999.

Would you be kind enough to look in my talk archives, 6 and 7, and tell me if Matisse's comments (to me)are rational? Geo. 18:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I am trying to determine if the comments to me show that this person needs to be blocked Geo. 18:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

What should I do? Sincerely, Mattisse(talk) 20:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I indented/italicized the other user's comments to make it a little more clear. I'll take a look later. - Che Nuevara 20:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I can't see any admin taking seriously a request to block you on those grounds. You are rightly confused about the status of your mediation case - it was confusing to me as well. I don't think Geo was trying to hide his identity; rather, he has a signature that takes you to different places depending on which letter you click. --Ars Scriptor 21:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for answering. Sincerely, Mattisse(talk) 21:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Question

Hmm, I'd forgotten that I'd put in a request for mediation by the cabal until it popped up in my watchlist again. Anyway how does one stop a request? I would go ahead and list the page for deletion but that seems presumptuous and I'm not sure of the policy. Anyway the user that was involved and that I'd requested mediation against/with in the first place was banned due to linkspamming and the problem has stopped. Thanks to anyone who replies! --ImmortalGoddezz 15:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• The easiest thing to do is just post a note on your request page explaining that the request is now moot. Since no one else had responded, I went ahead and closed your request, assuming you meant the Razr medcab request. (If not, please let me know!). TheronJ 15:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Yup that's the one. Thanks I appreciate it! --ImmortalGoddezz 16:35, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Naughty Bot :(

Hi guys! Ive been in MedCab for a couple of weeks now and im on case number 5, with 2 closed and one about to be, but none of them ever seem to be listed on the open cases list. I make sure ive been changing the status fields on the mediation page to open, is there something else ive been missing? Talk to you all soon Squad'nLeedah 20:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, the bot's been dead the past two weeks and I've been unable to contact Ericj about it, so that's probably why. :D Cowman109 20:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Well that would do it.... Squad'nLeedah 23:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I've gotten my hands on the bot's code so we at least have a temporary, manually updatable measure until we get a dedicated bot running up again. Cowman109 23:42, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Mediator left Misplaced Pages, need another

Ars Scriptor (talk · contribs) was the mediator for Talk:Muhammad/Mediation, but he retired from Misplaced Pages a month ago. Anyone else want to step up? - Merzbow 22:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll do it, but I'll need time to read it first. | AndonicO 13:22, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Harvard law class will be mediating as an assignment

http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/foi/Day_3_Assignment_-_Participate_in_Wikipedia_Dispute_Resolution

I'm sorta fine with this. I'm way too happy to have more vict^w volunteers to complain.

It'd be interesting to see how they do. It might be a VERY difficult assignment though.

Kim Bruning 22:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

It looks really, really, bad for the bot to be down and not updating the lists. Can anyone do anything about this? --Ideogram 22:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Toolserver problem? Kim Bruning 22:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Note that the assignment page has pages for group results. This includes which pages they'll try to be mediating. If you keep an eye on the group results over the weekend, you can try to make sure nothing will go totally wrong. I suggest being somewhat hands off, but it might be wise to help if things go over peoples' heads. I'll leave that up to individual judgement. :-) Kim Bruning 22:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

The assigment was due by monday. I wonder how the professor evaluated them! :-) Kim Bruning 23:59, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I am extremely disappointed in Misplaced Pages for their hostile and paranoid reaction to this class project. At least three of the groups were treated with suspicion and their motives were questioned. One was accused of being a bunch of sockpuppets. Despite the Misplaced Pages policy of "Don't bite the newbies" these students were clearly treated as unwelcome outsiders. --Ideogram 00:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

That does suck. Even so, the students held their ground. :-)

In the mean time, can we think of ways to improve peoples behaviour towards students? I'd very much like to see professors send more of their students our way, you never know, some might stick around. :-) Kim Bruning 01:00, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Plus it's educating the future. Geo. 05:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

It was a nice thought, but honestly, I don't think it's much of a fair assignment. Unless that was the point of the assignment. It takes quite some time to become acclimated to the ins and outs of Misplaced Pages society and its inner workings, and I think that pointing and saying "fix it" (especially recommending starting at something controversial like terrorism, the kind of dispute that never gets solved) is setting the students up for failure. However, it really ought to go without saying that people should be nice to newcomers. - Che Nuevara 09:27, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually those students were doing pretty darn well, IMHO! It was just a number of very rude wikipedians that I'm more dissapointed with. They decided to slow the students down for whatever silly reason, instead of cooperating in good faith. Maybe we need a separate category of punishment for "sabotaging good faith actions" or something. :-P Kim Bruning 00:45, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh yeah, and we have an article on the professor too! :-) Kim Bruning 01:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette alerts

Recently found Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette alerts as another place to find trouble a-brewin' for people who want to pick up a simple case to practice with. :-) Kim Bruning 19:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Association of Members Advocates

I hadn't noticed before, but this long dead wiki-organisation actually seems to be operational again, and some of their setup looks suspiciously mediation-cabal-like ;-) <Griiiiiin> Kim Bruning 01:01, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Thats right we' re operational. Geo. 05:16, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Mediation between users and not articles

Hello -- I have a question, My request is for mediation between two users who argue incessantly over various articles. These two seem to argue regularly on various articles coming close to 3RR several times. Is this an appropriate place to get these two to play nice with others, or is there another/better venue? Rob110178 04:14, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

If they're both willing to agree to mediation then absolutely! Otheriwise, consider the section of the Administrators' Noticeboard used for 3RR violations. Flakeloaf 13:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Requesting assistance

Some people are leaving me non stop things on my talk page, i do not want them to ever to talk to me, reply on my talk page. Also what is the difference here between this mediation and administrator's notice board?Where this cabel come from, this is new? -Boxingwear Template:BoxingWear

Hello BoxingWear. Please use four tildes (~~~~) to sign your name. That way it adds a link to your user page and adds the time you posted your question, both of which are helpful. I reviewed the talk page entries that have been posted. I think there is a slight misunderstanding as to the purpose of a talk page on Misplaced Pages. Quoting from various parts of WP:TALK:

These policies apply to all talk pages, on Misplaced Pages, though most people probably agree that since user talk pages are in user space, you should have a little more say in what stays or goes on your talk page. I, for instance, state that I reserve the right to remove offensive content posted to my talk page. It really doesn't matter, because everything posted on Misplaced Pages is permanently archived. But at least I do not have to stare at it. :-)

If the comments added to the page were vandalism, spiteful, or full of hateful speech, reporting the incident on the Administrators' Notice Board is a good thing to do. Contacting an admin friendly to you in the past is not as good of a choice, because it could escalate the issue due to perceived conflict of interest. You case is a little different. The other parties appear to be using your talk page in a proper manner to engage in editorial discussions about certain articles and actions that have been taken on Misplaced Pages.

Threatening and intimidating the other user for continued good-faith attempts at communicating to resolve differences in opinion is not the most effective way to resolve this issue. I would suggest you open a mediation case here, and work together through the various issues the two of you are facing. It's not the edits on the talk page, but rather that edits in the articles that really need to be resolved. Once they are resolved, the other user is unlikely to write on your talk page any more.

I wish you the best of luck in resolving this. Please remember that everyone at Misplaced Pages should be working toward the same goal of improving the site. We just have different ways of going about it. It doesn't mean either party is necessarily wrong, but it can certainly feel that way sometimes. Open communication (the point of both the talk pages and this cabal) are the best ways of enacting that here at Misplaced Pages. Take care. --Willscrlt (Talk·Cntrb) 04:05, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow, i just notices this reply, nice to hear from you guys, any of you administrators, sysops, that's same? I disagree, some words do not belong on talk pages. But yea, i know, but I am saying, there are times when certain people just keep on pushing it and pushing, sure, I warn them, but you can only remain cool for so long you know... What is this place for, is it similar to noticeboard?Usually on administrators' site, I get no replies. Boxingwear

Members list gone

Heh! I just came here to have a look at how the Cabal has been doing since my involvement in it. (Hell, I don't even edit Misplaced Pages any more, really.) I notice the "list of cabalists" has finally gone! I am delighted. I had long considered the list to be a rather clunky inconvenience and a possible deterrent to people helping out in an ad hoc manner, as it were. The next step, if I might make a suggestion, would be to jettison the case list and sub-pages, replacing them with a Category:Active Mediation Cabal disputes which would be managed via a template placed on article talk-pages. Feel free to ignore me if this sounds ridiculous, of course, as I carry no authority here; it was just a thought. Keep up the good work! Cheers, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 03:56, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

This is of course not ridiculous. It probably is lower maintennance, which is a real concern given that the bot doesn't work reliably. But I, for one, like the convenience of having all status informations on one page, so I'd rather vote for keeping it.

Speaking of a template: It just so happens that I created a template to be placed on top of a mediated article: {{mediated}}. I haven't included a category, though, because I want it to be useful for both Mediation Cabale and Mediation Committee. I'll post this in a new thread below so we can discuss it under the correct headline. — Sebastian 03:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Lineal Heavyweight boxing champions

I think it ws gwnol who took it down, i mean, the voting was positive 5-1 to keep it, why was that article gone, I do not know, it must be there, there are too many bad articles on wiki, this one truly belongs, I will be willing to write it. That was truly stupid to take it down! Well, here are my other problems: http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:BoxingWear#WP:MEDCAB Boxingwear

visiting after absence

Mediated about a dozen conflicts a long while ago, just stopping by to see what is going on. It would be great if someone could figure out our "success rate". What fraction of mediations actually begin, and what fraction are actually "resolved" in a positive fashion? Rather curious, Sdedeo (tips) 23:38, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

It's hard to define "success". I would say most often mediations just die because people lose interest. If those aren't "successes" then our success rate would be quite low, I'd estimate less than ten percent. --Ideogram 23:53, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Hee hee. I closed a number of cases that "died due to interest." I personally consider that a success -- it's rare to get an internet user to say "I was wrong" and I found that the grit-in-the-wheels participants preferred to just disappear. Sdedeo (tips) 01:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

BTW, Misplaced Pages:Mediation Committee isn't better. Incidentally, just last week I wanted to see if they had any success stories that we could learn from, but out of 99 cases I could only find two obvious successes (including one simple misunderstanding that was clarified with one question) and a handful of cases that were labelled as success, but I couldn't find out why. I asked about it on Misplaced Pages talk:Mediation Committee, but nobody replied so far. — Sebastian 03:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Neutral administrator needed, somebody who knows sports

Hi, I am having a big problem here, i do not want to leave any more replies on a certain page, because it may get me into trouble, i need somebody who knows something on boxing and will look at my situation from neutral point of view. -Boxingwear

Please follow the instructions under "Making a request for assistance" on the project page. — Sebastian 03:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

New template for mediated cases

This article is currently under mediation. Please refrain from any edits that could be seen as controversial, unless you are participating in the mediation and following the agreed upon procedure. For the mediation case, please see: ].

I created a template to be placed on top of a mediated article: {{mediated}}. I meant it to replace {{ActiveDiscuss}} and {{POV}}, although I left out theCategory:NPOV disputes, because they must have over 6000 articles in that category already, so anything we can do to reduce it probably helps, and if a case is mediated, it is already getting attention.

I want it to be useful for both Mediation Cabale and Mediation Committee, so I left out any specific reference to either, but if someone likes to add that, maybe via an optional parameter, I'd be fine with that. — Sebastian 03:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest the following adjustment:

This article is currently under mediation. Please refrain from any edits that could be seen as controversial, unless you wish to participate in the mediation and follow the agreed upon procedure. For the mediation case, please see: ].

to emphasize that any interested party is welcome to join the mediation at any time. --Ideogram 05:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

These kinds of tags are very useful and I encourage people to use them. Basically, they help avoid a common problem: "oh wait, despite our long exchange I promise I didn't know I was joining in a mediation, I refuse to do anything mediationy, and please f.off." Sdedeo (tips) 17:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I just changed the wording to this

This article is currently under mediation. Some statements may be be disputed, incorrect, biased or otherwise objectionable. Please read the mediation case ] before making substantial changes.

to address a concern raised on Wikipedia_talk:Mediation_Committee#New_template_for_mediated_cases that "neither the Mediation Committee nor the Mediation Cabal have the authority to order users not to edit an article, and certainly not to lock it down in the manner this template suggests. ".

Given that we sometimes even go as far as protecting pages altogether, I do see a use for a "pretty please protection" as an intermediate state between the above version and real protection. Maybe that could be reserved for tough cases or as a second level. That template could be called Template:Mediated2 in analogy to the user warning levels on WP:UW. What do others think? — Sebastian 22:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

The existing template has a more soothing color scheme and is designed for talk pages:

Template:ActiveDiscussMC

Addhoc 23:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

We probably want to make sure that there is no confusion around the fact that this is informal mediation and not official mediation of the mediation committee. Perhaps instead of saying that an article is under mediation, it could say under 'informal mediation' and link to the mediation cabal instead of to Mediation? Cowman109 23:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, seems to me like we're getting pretty caught up in formalities for an informal cabal, aren't we?  ;-) — Sebastian 23:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

woah woah

Sorry to create a new topic, but I want to emphasise my disagreement with having the template stuck on the article page itself. Didn't notice that. I really think doing that is a bad idea, if only because of the trouble it would lead to if other groups starting doing it (can you imagine the proliferation of tags on the article page -- "this article is currently under review by the[REDACTED] committee for X"). We're used to massive numbers of well-intentioned tags on talk pages, but I don't think we want to see the same creep for article pages except for long accepted tags like NPOV, etc. Sdedeo (tips) 05:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Request someone talk to Nurg

I just want somebody to talk to User:Nurg about his bad habit of marking major edits including reverts as "minor". This is something which User:Wik use to do a lot of, you would see in Wik's contribution listing Revert after Revert all marked as "minor" and all with "rv" as the description. Deleteing other people's work or inserting new content is not a "minor" edit in MHO.58.107.15.245 05:30, 1 February 2007 (UTC)