Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/2009 Archive 1

Definition of Spiritism

Hopefully I'm doinbg where it should go. During 2008, I have followed closely the definition presented on spiritism, which makes it to look as a synonim to spiritualism. In a couple of opportunities I have corrected such points of view. lately, I decided to rewrite the topic, since deliberately any mention to Mr. Joaquín Trincado Mateo had beed evaded from this definition, which looked to me as kind of an abuse. Deconstructhis who is a contributor on this page, also seems to uphold such ideas, by undoing corrections to it I made. I corrected the idea stated that says "french spiritualism" related to Allan Kardec, which is absoolutely untrue. Why shouldn't just reinforce, perhaps what others do, or research if what they are saying is truth or not, but just undo others work, does not seem right.

I summarize, during this year I have seen these changes,and Deconstructhis currently undoes changes to this definition.

• Spiritism is not a christian religion, not even a religion. Seem that he oaths it is that way; invited him to read Joaquín trincado mateo books to state if he is or not spiritist, and his doctrine not spiritism. Seems to be deaf.
• Ask to stop avoiding to include Joaquín Trincado Mateo on spiritism, which is not fair, with his work. It is not an ethical point of view.
• Who can rely on what is stated here, when such doctrine is related to evocation and phenomenology, when Trincado presented and complemented it as a philosophical approach. There is no space left for it here.

Related main articles:

Spiritism Joaquín Trincado Mateo spiritualism

Itinerary

Remember, we're redesigning this so anyone can use it. New mediators and requesters are wary of templates, so we should avoid showing them as much as possible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xavexgoem (talk • contribs)

If you're looking for design ideas this could be of interest. PhilKnight (talk) 17:56, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Damn... I wish I could've been around when all those folks were around :-)

Maybe something to resurrect; my fear atm is it might look a bit pathetic (otoh, it allows someone to give clear indication that they are part of this effort, eh?). So I dunno: do you think it's better to have the volunteer section on its own subpage, or have it open as soon as someone types WP:MEDCAB? Xavexgoem (talk) 19:37, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

←Alright, mostly done. It's functional as it is, but someday I'm gonna want to do something hideous to medcabstatus. I didn't even need to break the bot, sigh. Anyway, here are the changes:

1. Aesthetic changes, which seem to be improving attendance *crosses fingers* (thanks to User:Everyme, User:Roux, User:Vassyana, User:WhomeverI'veForgotten)
2. Disputes can be listed from WP:MEDCAB directly, or the old way with the template on talk. There is no huge difference between them, other than the latter method still involves an esoteric template I could do without. See below for evil ideas I have with them.
3. The case page has changed significantly... it's also the most subject to change. I (and Seddon, I think) felt the old method allowed requesters to poison the well before anything got started, so right now the only headers are ;Where's the dispute, ;What's the dispute, and ;Why is there a dispute. ;Mediator notes, ;Administrator notes, and ;Discussion have been removed. If a cabalist wants to use a mediator notes section, or wants to use the casepage, then that's totally their prerogative. ;Discussion was removed largely because folks started arguing before the case was even listed, and in Today's Hostile Environment®, it's probably best to keep griping amongst disputees (what we clinically call "behavioral disputes") to a minimum.

Anyway, all in an effort to make medcab look less scary. Method 2 will be changed later, unless the project is indeed going to hell in a handbasket (to wit: invisibilize template on talk, so that disputes can be marked as such without anyone, y'know, knowing *cackles evilly*). But what's certainly next on the list is taking a hatchet to the esoteric templates, starting with medcabstatus (both methods - and the bot - are affected by this).

In the meantime, two things will likely be updated as information comes in: the /suggestions subpage, since some of the process has changed for cabalists; and the case pase template (Template:MedcabTemplate), since I was perhaps a little too bold in changing it and now we have something completely different, so the request details are gonna come through differently. Kinda hard to measure, but we already have a case that's listed without any associated article (/fringe), so I know something is wrong :-p Xavexgoem (talk) 12:53, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Scotland mediation request

Hi i requested informal mediation last week to do with the Scotland article. The problem has now been resolved so i need to withdraw the request. Ive said that on the case article and i changed the status to closed (not sure if that was the right thing to change it too, but was the only thing that seemed to work). Sorry if i did change it to the wrong thing, hope someone can put it into the right place. Thanks BritishWatcher (talk) 11:08, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Not a problem, everything worked out great :-)

Glad to hear the problem was resolved :-D Xavexgoem (talk) 12:01, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Template overhaul ... again

At Xavexgoem's request, the template system has been overhauled. Make sure you read up on the new ways of changing case page statuses, opening and closing cases at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/suggestions#Templates. Thankyou and happy mediating! Foxy Loxy ^Pounce! 07:55, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

No membership needed?

If you wish to mediate a dispute there's no membership or anything required is there? You just add your name to the 'mediator:' on the dispute article info box and begin mediation right? --SamB135 (talk) 06:18, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Indeed; this form of mediation is completely informal. Ironholds (talk) 07:40, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

No membership whatsoever. If you'd like, the (ir)regulars are on our IRC channel. Xavexgoem (talk) 14:41, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Content disputes at Editor Assistance

I do a lot of work at Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests and very often content disputes are brought to that page. There seems to be a great reluctance by editors there to undertake mediation on anything but the simplest and most straightforward cases. Would there be any objection to pointing suitable cases towards your page? SpinningSpark 13:07, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Spinningspark, by all means refer Editor Assistance request here. PhilKnight (talk) 13:38, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that, its good to know there is somewhere to go for help. I try to resolve problems myself but sometimes feel that I just am not knowledgable enough of the subject to make a good job of it. SpinningSpark 14:37, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Need assistance

Hello I am a mediator for If Americans Knew. The case page is here at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-01/If Americans Knew. Unfortunately I may have undermined my own efforts at mediating. I believe my actions were necessary, but I would appreciate some advice and assistance from experienced mediators. This is my first time mediating. Ltwin (talk) 21:57, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

It's OK to put your foot down, if that's what you're worried about. Just use sparingly, and sprinkle with sugar ;-)

As for asking editors to revert (if I read the discussion right): You can't exert any control over the article in this capacity (save for the occasional page protect; again: sparingly, sprinkle with sugar). It's usually fuel, and can put a mediator in a bad spot. Xavexgoem (talk) 22:14, 15 February 2009 (UTC) where "sugar" is an obscene amount of smiley faces :-) <-- how can you go wrong with that?

Well if it seemed like I was trying to exert control that wasn't what I was trying to do. I had never commanded anyone not to edit, only to seek consensus on the talk page first. One editor made an edit which then caused another edit to revert and a cycle started. Then the editor who made the initial edit said he came up with a compromise until mediation was over. But he never discussed this with anyone so I reverted that edit and said that the editors should discuss this first. Then that edit was reverted again by the editor. I guess I'm struggling with how to deal with an editor whose edits have set off a cycle of edit warring with out getting bogged down in the dispute myself. Then I have the other people who are reverting that persons edits. I may not be cut out for this. Ltwin (talk) 01:21, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

You're doing fine :-) You picked an extremely contentious article, so don't worry. My first case was an Israel/Palestine article, too. That never reached consensus; it very nearly hit arbitration, actually. Were I not to have participated, it probably would've. The easiest thing about mediation at first is knowing that your presence alone brings sanity.

If an editor is going against consensus in the middle of a mediation he agreed to, I see you as having at least two options (save for closing the case, which is understandable at any rate): Mediate without the editor, if you still have two conflicting parties active in the mediation process; or, make an agreement with all the editors (something like this) to stop edit warring during the proceedings. If the editor is still causing trouble in either case then it's their loss, either because they're not being helpful during dispute resolution or they're reneging on their agreement.

The tricks of this trade are an acquired thing, but that's a start (they've worked for me). And if all else fails, you can't go wrong asking questions. "Why are you edit warring?", "What do you want fixed?", etc. They have your attention, and it provides valuable insight. Xavexgoem (talk) 03:51, 16 February 2009 (UTC) If you use IRC, I'm on our our channel regularly... it's linked on WP:MEDCAB; I'd provide it, but then I'd have to not-be-lazy :-p

Thanks for your advice this really helped me. Also I got a chance to get away from my computer and destress lol. Ltwin (talk) 04:02, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Ireland is an island, or is it?

Resolved

Mediation on the Ireland matter has been turned down by all the extremely respectable editors. The team is short one mediator and suggestions are now running to "Someone who has a detailed knowledge of the subject" and "Let's ask Jimbo Wales" (who said no, etc) So, if no-one else asks, where would an editor find an impartial mediator? ~ R.T.G 14:54, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Change of mediators

I began mediating a case related to a bunch of articles related to the Shell to Sea campaign, (case page), but it seems life outside Wikipedia is demanding more and more time, and keeping me way too busy and preoccupied to effectively keep the mediation going. I thus ask for someone else to take over the case. I will drop by periodically as time permits and assist with the case, as needed. I'll inform the parties of this request, and hope someone can help us out. — Twinzor ^{Say hi!} 13:48, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

World war II online mediation

It seems that Erik has created the mediation, but there hasn't been any action for weeks. I've tried contacting on his talk page but I have no response. What is the procedure for mediation cases that has stalled due to mediator inactivity? 24.114.255.83 (talk) 19:28, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I'll take over the case. Give me 24 hours to get up to speed. PhilKnight (talk) 19:32, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-02/Windows 7 editions

The user mediating this seems to have left "so he can live his life"; anyone mind if I strike his name and start mediating? After checking people still want mediation, of course. Ironholds (talk) 22:05, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Not a problem :-) Xavexgoem (talk) 23:38, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Opinions sought

I have been involved in a dispute which, out of exasperation, I brought to ArbCom. The details of that are irrelevent here, but the committee is generally of the opinion that it is a "content dispute". However, they also have said that this case highlights a "hole" in the arbitration process. Specifically, where the dispute is about content and the two sides have become so intractable that mediation cannot resolve the issue, there is nowhere for the dispute to go.

This gave me an idea, which I have offered as a suggestion in that dispute as to how we may find a resolution. This got me thinking further and I am wondering if the idea could be expanded to fill that "hole" in dispute resolution.

I have collected a few initial ideas as to how it might work and placed them here. Any comments or suggestions are greatly welcomed.--FimusTauri (talk) 16:15, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Templates?

I am looking for something to put over a section of an article to indicate that it is in mediation. I know I have seen this, but this is my first time mediating and can't seem to find it.

Is there somewhere that has a list of the different mediation cabal templates. For example, the template that goes at the top of a talk page to let people know that it is being mediated. Wikipediatoperfection (talk) 20:24, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

On the case page or on the talk page?

I just took up my first case as a mediator. I am wondering whether mediators typically have the discussion on the case page or if they take it to the talk page. I took a look at the open cases and different mediators seemed to have different approaches. Does anyone have any suggestions as to why they like one method better or does anyone have a good rule of thumb? Wikipediatoperfection (talk) 21:57, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

It's really up to you. There are advantages and disadvantages depending on the case. In this case, I'd go to the article talk page. Staying on the case page is good if you're likely to get a lot of traffic on the talk page (like in I/P, Troubles, Eastern Europe, fringe, et al). But sometimes you want that, too. Xavexgoem (talk) 23:40, 20 March 2009 (UTC)