Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal

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

Shortcut

[[:|WT:MEDCAB]]

New sections at bottom, please.

Aspiring Cabalist

So, how do you join this thing? Just add your name to the list and take a case? Lurker ^talk 16:55, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well - yes. :) It's a highly informal and (hopefully) autonomous process so we rely on mediators watching out for eachother on tough cases - the most important thing you should do is ask for help should things get tough. Cowman109^Talk 17:00, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

May I join?

I would love to help with mediation. So, I would like to know how I can join, and if I can help. Thanks! Wiki eZach| talk 01:58, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As it's an informal process, you can go ahead and volunteer to mediate a case in the new cases section. I would recommend that you read Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Suggestions for mediators first for some guidelines, and I cannot stress enough the importance of asking for help should you feel lost or are experiencing difficulty. Also, feel free to add yourself to the list of cabalists on the main page. Cowman109^Talk 02:17, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit conflict :) I will also add that before I took my first case, I looked at how some other mediators handled things, but ultimately it's up to you. Just remember to stay neutral and help them reach a consensus. I and others are always available to help or answer questions. --Aguerriero (talk) 02:20, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question about how to approach a case

I'm interested in mediating, and hope to choose a case soon; I'm still reading policies and cases for now so I can educate myself a little more before diving in. That brought up one question, which I thought I'd ask here.

In the John Prescott case, currently "new", the conflict was over salacious allegations about Prescott. The case seems to have been resolved well. However, if I'd been mediating, I'd have said some slightly different things than the mediator involved (User:CQJ). This is not at all a criticism of CQJ; I'm trying to understand what approaches are thought to be best, and just where to draw the line between trying to help people come to an agreement, on the one hand, and letting them know when they are contravening WP policies, on the other.

In this case the salacious allegations were that Prescott had a small penis. One party to the mediation commented on the talk page that although that itself was not verifiable, the fact that the allegations were widely known and discussed in the UK, and that Prescott was an object of ridicule as a result, was indeed verifiable and worthy of inclusion.

CQJ asked for sources before taking the case. I think this was designed to remind the participants that the policies on verifiability and reliable sources would apply, and short cut the discussion. As I said above, this has apparently been successful.

I agree that those two policies apply. I think my reflex would have been to say that I'd take the case, and try to get agreement from the participants over the extent of the relevance of those policies to the proposed additional text. Would that have been wrong? CQJ's comment in the case made it clear he was amused, but willing to take it, and may have struck just the right note to defuse tension. But I was surprised when I first saw it, because I wasn't expecting to see a mediator refuse to take a case.

I'd be glad of any comments. Thanks -- Mike Christie 17:21, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we are an informal process so there are, of course, different ways about doing things. In that case in particular, with information such as that, especially on a living person per WP:LIVING, verifiability is key. If people went about insulting the size of his manhood and he stumbled upon the Wikipedia entry, I'm sure a firestorm would stir up. Your method could have worked too, I'm sure. I honestly don't think such information is relevant, but even if it was relevant, unless there is a verifiable source that says the belief is indeed true and it's been documented, verifiablility is often the most important thing in a biography of a living person (it should be on all articles, anyway). Cowman109^Talk 17:30, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Backlog

I've noticed a backlog of open cases. Is there anything we can do to close cases that are still left open, which are in fact old? Possibly ask the mediator to close it? Review the case and close it ourseleves? SynergeticMaggot 02:12, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I recently closed about 6 innactive cases - I usually look at the old ones that don't seem to be active and leave a note in the mediator response section asking if the case is innactive. After a few days, if there is no response, I leave a note asking those involved to file a new case request if they are still having issues and I change the category to closed. Feel free to help clearing out the old ones that no longer seem to be in need of assistance. In many cases disputes just die down with time, which helps :). Cowman109^Talk 02:45, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. I just find that discussion first in these cases are going to be beneficial. I recently just had a close (for another mediator) I did blow up on my RfA. :) Everything was worked out but I gave it some thought and decided that I should at least address the issue here first. SynergeticMaggot 02:49, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean that someone brought up the manner in which you closed a mediation case in your RfA? I would love to take another case right now, but I got involved in an "unofficial" case that is taking up a lot of my time. --Aguerriero (talk) 02:52, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Once I handle a few off wiki things and a few off-cabal cases I'll try to cut the backlog in half as well :P Cowman109^Talk 03:06, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, get to work, ya slacker! It's not like you have your own RfA going right now... :) --Aguerriero (talk) 03:11, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]