User talk:MyNameIsNotBob/East Sea

"Request for two parties"

I object (respectfully): this is not an A vs. B situation; this is a process that we should all talk through, and I am going to have different takes than other people who might superficially be of the same position as me; I think it's unrealistic to come up with a party vs. party comment system; it also adds to the adversarial feeling of the mediation. --Nlu (talk) 08:55, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry MyNameIsNotBob, I object too. I prefer the new standard started by Essjay, modeled after WP:RfA. I see that Essjay just changed the text in Wikipedia:Mediation to reflect that. Plus, it's a bad idea to change procedures in the middle, as we were committed to Essjay's standards when we signed up for Mediation. Please let us know when you resolve this with Essjay. Thanks.--Endroit 09:25, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks for voicing your concerns. Essjay has changed the system so that it can address more than two parties and considering you two have asked that we do not make it a two party mediation we will not make this a two party mediation. MyNameIsNotBob 11:49, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

either way is fine, as long as the following are noted for the record:

"The three policies [ WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:NOR] are complementary, non-negotiable, and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editor's consensus."
some participants here recruited other participants with known similar views
afaik, none of the participants are unbiased third parties invited through WP:RFC
it would be easy for either side to recruit partisans to beef up numbers, if wikipedia were a democracy

to quote from a guideline, WP:CON, just for reference: "Consensus should not trump NPOV (or any other official policy).... a group of editors may be able to shut out certain facts and points of view through persistence, numbers, and organization. This group of editors should not agree to an article version that violates NPOV, but on occasion will do so anyway. This is generally agreed to be a bad thing. The preferred way to deal with this problem is to draw the attention of more editors to the issue by one of the methods of dispute resolution, such as consulting a third party, filing a request for comment (on the article in question), and requesting mediation. Enlarging the pool will prevent consensus being enforced by a small group of willful editors."

i do not have a problem with a number of people on the same side just wanting to have their say, as long as it does not interfere with an efficient, manageable process, but it's not the numbers that matter, since either side could easily recruit more partisans, in a pointless cycle.

now, back to our job of applying policies to sources. Appleby 17:50, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]