Wikipedia:Requests for mediation: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 19:54, 26 July 2004

Please read the information in the "What is mediation?" section below before formally asking for mediation. Also, please be sure that you have followed the preliminary steps laid out in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. You may also wish to consult the introductory page at Wikipedia:Mediation.

What is mediation?

"The whole point of mediation is to get people to talk, listen, try to think things through logically and reasonable (emphasis on reason) so that some compromises can be reached to everyone's satisfaction." -- Alex756.

Mediation is the activity in which a neutral third party (the mediator) assists two or more parties (the editors in dispute) in order to help resolve their dispute, with concrete effects, on a matter of common interest.

During mediation, each party can have a break, sit down with the mediator and the other party, have the opportunity to explain his/her situation, listen to each other, work together to achieve an agreement and make a consensual decision over the issue at stake.

Who are the mediators?

Mediators are people who are volunteering to get involved in mediating user disputes.
They are regular trusted editors, approved by Jimbo and the other members of the commitee, here to help you.
But they are

without any actual power over the final decision, and
without any power to vote for or recommend a ban or any other punitive action.

After a mediation has failed, the committee can recommend the case for arbitration though.

See also

What happens during mediation?

You may ask for mediation here (see below), or on the mailing list. You may suggest a name, or the commitee will appoint a mediator to help you. In every case, both parties must agree with the mediator chosen.

This may be done through various means such as email, irc, phone... What is said during mediation sessions is private, and won't be disclosed without agreement of all parties. In particular it won't be used in any further conflict resolution proceedings (arbitration). You will be able to speak freely and fully.

Mediation is voluntary. Any settlement reached must be agreeable to both parties.

From time to time, progress bulletins (if warranted) might be issued.

What happens if mediation fails?

Disputants may (one or both parties) ask for arbitration, which is the next and final step in dispute resolution.

It is important to insist that disputants should themselves make a request for arbitration. It is not the role of a mediator to do this on your behalf.

The arbitration committee will vote on whether to accept your request, so be prepared to defend your case. They may decide that mediation has not been pushed far enough and refer the case back to mediation. In this case, you may either drop the issue and learn to live with the conflict (agree to disagree), or return to mediation and request help from another mediator (it may be granted or not), or ask help from an advocate.

Note that in any case, an advocate may help you to fill up your request and defend your case in front of the arbitration committee.

Keep in mind that mediation is an alternative to having an arbitrator decide your case in the name of the community. I.e., other than the disputants will decide determine a commonly beneficial solution (what we could call a win win solution while arbitration is a win lose solution). It is in the best interest of disputants to solve a dispute through mediation rather than arbitration, because it is the disputants who agree together to a commonly beneficial solution.

What mediation is not

Mediation is not Facilitation. So, while mediation may lead to better work on articles or between editors, it is not specifically designed to faciliate the editing of articles where people disagree but the issue has not come to an impasse yet.
Mediation is not Arbitration. The arbitration process at Wikipedia exists to impose binding solutions to Wikipedia disputes. This solution may be anything up to and including a ban from editing the entire Wikipedia for a period of time. This is not the goal of mediation.
Mediation is not Soapbox or Discussion Forum. If a user feels a need to have that kind of forum, the talk pages of users and article will have to suffice.
Mediation is not a place to test Anarchism. The fact that Wikipedia is an open, self-governing project does not mean that any part of its purpose is to explore the viability of anarchistic communities. Our purpose is to build an encyclopedia, not to test the limits of anarchism. The mediation process is not to be used to test the limits of the community's forbearance.

What mediators are not

Mediators are not Emissaries. It is not the job of mediators to pass messages between individuals who are not able to communicate. Mediators work to establish the trust and common ground to allow communication to happen.
Mediators are not Private Investigators. Mediators do not "work for you," nor will they work to build a case against someone or research the facts in an article. Mediators will examine the facts surrounding the dispute in an attempt to understand what each party is looking for and to determine what may end the dispute.
Mediators are not Psychologists or Social Workers. Mediators will work with both parties, and therefore cannot counsel or give advice to either party involved in the dispute.
Mediators are not Advocates. Mediators will not take sides or promote one person's point of view or request over those of another person.
Mediators are not Security Guards. Mediators are not there to protect an article or talk pages and will not watch for improper bahavior or violations of rules or guidelines. Nor will they report any incidents or document what happened in an incident report.

Possible measures if these guidelines are not being followed

Removing the request to the poster's talk page
Moving the request to Wikipedia:Requests for comment
Ending the mediation
Referral to arbitration

For more information

You may wish to consult the following introductory link before formally asking for mediation: Wikipedia:Mediation (what is mediation)

Requests for mediation

It is always preferable for both parties to the dispute to request mediation. If possible please agree between you to request mediation before adding a request to this page. However, if you feel unable to approach the other party or feel that a mediator is needed to get an agreement to mediation then please ask.

It's important that this page should not become a second version of Wikipedia:Conflicts between users.

Please do not edit this page directly if you are not a participant in a case. Relevant comments may be left on the Talk page, and will be read in full.

See #Archives for past requests.

Please place requests at the bottom of the page, and date your comment

Archived and ongoing cases

User:Rorschach567 and User:Michael Rawdon
- Mediation underway with Danny. See Archive 8 for the request.

User:Herschelkrustofsky and User:DJSupreme23
- Archived as Herschelkrustofsky no longer accepting mediation, and the case is already at arbitration.

User:AndyL and User:WHEELER
- Archived as AndyL is away until September 15.

User:Simonides and User:Jayjg, User:RK, User:Humus sapiens + others. Mediation currently underway by Cimon avaro. See Archive 8 for details.

User:Stirling Newberry and User:Terjepetersen

I am asking for mediation on this user, I feel that his sole purpose is to insert POV material into articles, and he has started an edit war over Supply-side economics. Stirling Newberry 12:19, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I have left a message for Terjepetersen on his talk page to see if he is willing to accept mediation. BCorr|Брайен 15:45, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

TERJE (2004-07-26):Is this process still active. Unfortuantely I completely missed the entire process because my own talk page was not on my watch list. That is now rectified. Is mediation process opened or closed or what?

There hasn't been any mediation since both people have to agree. Since you are willing to participate, please reply and say if you have any preferences as to the mediator. There is a list of committee members at Wikipedia:Mediation Committee. Thanks, BCorr|Брайен 17:06, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

User:Johnleemk and User:Drbalaji md

Drbalaji has engaged in repeated personal attacks and false allegations (regarding my usage of sysop powers) on me, including on Talk:Main page. He has also labeled the "majority of admins" as morons. User:chocolateboy may be involved, as he too was the subject of name-calling ("self-styled king") and false allegations of misusing his sysop power (when he isn't even one). See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Drbalaji md, User talk:Drbalaji md and Talk:Coca-Cola. I would like mediation so we can sort this out without him resorting to his ridiculous debate tactics (as was evidenced by his argument with User:Raul654). He has not agreed to mediation, as I haven't asked him. If I know him, he'll refuse, based on grounds that he is fighting "dictatorship and bureaucracy". Hopefully somebody can help us resolve this, as I'm tired of being slandered by Drbalaji wherever he goes. Johnleemk | Talk 09:22, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Message left at User talk:Drbalaji md asking if Drbalaji md is willing to participate in mediation. Angela . 11:26, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

User:K1 and user:refdoc

K1 has refused mediation. Moved to Archive 8.

User:RK and User:DanKeshet (and/or User:Zero0000 )

As described on Wikipedia:Requests for comment, there has been an on-again, off-again conflict in editing at Israel Shahak, talk:Israel Shahak, Edward Said, and talk:Edward Said, all regarding content regarding Israel Shahak. Not only is the actual content of the article at an impasse (Israel Shahak has been protected for a few days now), but the discussion on the talk page does not appear to be productive. The three people who have been most engaged in this conflict are User:RK, User:DanKeshet (myself), and User:Zero0000. Zero and I have stated that RK is not being intellectually honest, while RK has stated that Zero and I are being anti-Semitic. I have asked RK if he would join me in seeking mediation regarding this dispute, and have asked Zero whether he wishes to participate. DanKeshet 08:07, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I am willing (with some hesitation). --Zero 10:44, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I am willing. RK 15:10, Jul 20, 2004 (UTC)

Apologies for the delay. Do any of you have any preferences as to the mediator? There is a list of committee members at Wikipedia:Mediation Committee. (I am not currently available myself). -- sannse (talk) 21:26, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I believe Ed disqualified himself by passing judgment on the issue on the mailing list. Other than that, I'm open. DanKeshet 22:27, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I agree with Dan. --Zero 15:45, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Hi. Some of the members of the mediation committee have recused ourselves from participating in this issue. Would all of you agree to having Cimon avaro act as mediator on a trial basis? If so, please sign beside your name.

Dan Keshet DanKeshet 06:40, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Zero --Zero 02:10, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
RK RK 19:29, Jul 26, 2004 (UTC)

User:Zestauferov and User:Jayjg

I am currently involved in a dispute with User:Zestauferov about the classification of Nazarene Judaism. At User:Zestauferov's request, User:Ed Poor has locked the page in the form User:Zestauferov prefers. Would it be possible to get mediation on this? Thanks. Jayjg 21:40, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I've left a message at User talk:Zestauferov. Do you have any preference for a mediator? Angela . 19:18, Jul 26, 2004 (UTC)

No, I have none. Ed Poor has involved himself in the dispute at Zestauferov's request, and completely re-written the contentious article, so I'm not sure where this leaves us. Jayjg 19:54, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

User:bcrowell and User:eclecticology

I'm involved in a disagreement wirh User:eclecticology concerning the astrology article. The article has a long history of edit wars concerning NPOV. I put an NPOV dispute marker on the article yesterday, and explained my reasons on the article's talk page, and eclecticology then deleted the NPOV marker, which I've now put back in. Since we seem to be getting in an edit war over something as simple as the NPOV marker, it really seems like it might be helpful to get mediation. --Bcrowell 15:24, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I've contacted User:eclecticology via his talk page to ask him if he's willing to do mediation. --Bcrowell 15:02, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I don't think that mediation is yet the appropriate way of dealing with this disagreement. User:Bcrowell did confront each other in this article in December 2002. Events since then have allowed the article to arrive at a delicate NPOV balance; adding the notice now does not recognize anyone's efforts to achieve that balance. My adversary has failed to mention that I fully responded to his comments on the talk page, and his only response to my comments was to request mediation The issue is much, much bigger than what is on the astrology page. See my comments at Category talk:Pseudoscience. To me the term "pseudoscience" is as pejorative just as the term "dictator" would be in other contexts. Bcrowell is only one person in that bigger dispute, but his attitude and style of argument is representative of a very common one among "scientists". Thus to view this as a simple dispute between two individual users does not settle anything.

Should others consider that mediation is the appropriate avenue to take, there is only one member of the committee whose sometimes eccentric views on science matters would raise my objections. One other member participated in the astrology article in November, 2002 but his edits at that time do not appear to be problematical. Eclecticology 20:49, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thus to view this as a simple dispute between two individual users does not settle anything.
True, but that's the way the mediation process seems to be defined.

Events since then have allowed the article to arrive at a delicate NPOV balance
I think it would be more accurate to say that Eclecticology has tried to wear down the resistance of anyone who attempted to introduce NPOV into this article.

If there was ever a good case for mediation, I think this is it. --Bcrowell 06:02, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

@@ Line 130: / Line 130: @@
 :I've left a message at [[User talk:Zestauferov]]. Do you have any preference for a [[Wikipedia:Mediation Committee|mediator]]? [[User:Angela|Angela]][[user talk:Angela|.]] 19:18, Jul 26, 2004 (UTC)
+::No, I have none.  [[Ed Poor]] has involved himself in the dispute at Zestauferov's request, and completely re-written the contentious article, so I'm not sure where this leaves us. [[User:Jayjg|Jayjg]] 19:54, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 === [[User:bcrowell]] and [[User:eclecticology]] ===