Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/2009 Archive 3

Note to new cabalists

Often it will appear a case is stalled or inactive, since requesters forget to watchlist the casepage. Before closing a case as inactive, go to the talk page of the article in dispute and remind everyone of the MedCab request. Thanks! Xavexgoem (talk) 16:27, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Mediator meetings

See the village pump here for a proposal. Please comment and revise! Geoff Plourde (talk) 07:18, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

The Village Pump item has since been archived here. And, since there was no Village Pump response, the direct link to Mr. Plourde’s proposal can be found here. — SpikeToronto 19:53, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Dead template

On Wikipedia:Dispute resolution requests I read "Add {{subst:medcab-request}} to the section of the disputed article's talk page that requires mediation and save the page." It seems to me that no such template exists. So what should be done? And could sb change this text? Debresser (talk) 21:40, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Oops... there are so many templates and instructions all over the place that it's easy to lose track. Anyway, go to our mainpage and request from there. Xavexgoem (talk) 01:25, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

What mainpage do you mean? Isn't this the mainpage's discussion page? Debresser (talk) 01:35, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

There seems to be a little confusion, but I can fix up the issue. Steve Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 01:53, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Xav has already done it. Well aren't I slow? Steve Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 01:58, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Debresser, at the top of the talk page there's a link to "mainpage" above "central discussion" (or something) - I just mean the main project page... Alternately, I could just link you it :-p WP:MEDCAB Xavexgoem (talk) 02:21, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

KISS and make up? --Kim Bruning (talk) 18:25, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Procedural questions

See Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-09-15/Polish-Ukrainian WWII disputes. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:11, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I should be more clear; I'll do so here. I'll be honest: What I'm seeing in this dispute is a wiki-lawyering campaign over WP:PLACE. This, as you know, is very common (it's expected, and the culture of the project is such that it's basically legitimate), and the best I can do is disabuse some of the participants from worrying overmuch about rules, especially since it's so likely to be a substitute for substantive debate, and as a way of avoiding a discussion on the various point-of-views held by the editors over yonder (while still managing to keep one POV steady via enforcement of the guideline).

I've moved the discussion towards Vecrumba's proposal, since at least there there's some compromise territory. But I have to keep both threads open. What you could do is clarify what you think the guideline means in spirit without presenting it objectively, if that makes sense. I fear we'll be running around in circles for a while, here, until I find the proper opening.

Ah, the life of a mediator :-) Xavexgoem (talk) 23:45, 16 September 2009 (UTC) Also: I don't think I've answered your concerns? Would you be more clear about what the procedural problems are, in your opinion?

Um, I think that's the wrong mediation :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:50, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

...ah, the life of a mediator! *sigh* :) Xavexgoem (talk) 23:54, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Including more information about what types of cases we take?

Lately I've seen quite a few cases opened over simple edit warring, where what they really want is WP:AN3. Other cases are completely user conduct-based, and better suited to WP:ANI, as we don't impose judgments or sanctions on editors. One other thing i've noticed is that the noticeboards all have information at the top about where to take different kinds of disputes, so you don't post to the wrong one. Should we have a paragraph about what we do (i.e. that this is a voluntary process and parties must consent, etc) and where to take complaints over edit warring or user conduct? The Wordsmith_{(formerly known as Firestorm)}^Communicate 19:28, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

We do have the paragraph that states we don't impose sanctions. But your point regarding clarity is well-taken. I agree that it may be beneficial to state explicitly and noticeably on this page that user conduct issues are not well-suited for mediation. Perhaps some petitioners for mediation do not fully realize this. —Matheuler 20:00, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I think the things for us that are most important to state up front are:

• Informal/no sanctions
• Voluntary/all parties must consent
• not for simple vandalism, edit wars, or user conduct

If we do all that, we'll probably cut in half the number of cases that need to be declined with parties pointed in the direction of a noticeboard. The Wordsmith_{(formerly known as Firestorm)}^Communicate 02:44, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

On the one hand, it does make sense to consolidate the opening paragraphs of the MEDCAB main page in a way that expresses the points you mentioned (especially #3). At the same time, I suppose it is not such a terrible thing for an experienced editor to point the participants to the correct noticeboard. It probably only takes a few minutes of our time. But, I do agree, on the whole, with the reworded intro idea. Do you have a proposed text? —Matheuler 02:49, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Haven't come up with one yet, but if this gains consensus i'm willing to write it up. The Wordsmith_{(formerly known as Firestorm)}^Communicate 02:57, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I think it's important to leave some wiggle-room. Often you have to get past a conduct dispute before you can tackle a content dispute. It's an immensely important skill for mediators to have. But that's IMO... personally, I'd rather some cases were brought over here instead of having them at AN/I. And it's within the mediator's prerogative to bring folks to AN/I, etc., if they're being truly disastrous. I suppose my principal worry is that there will be a content dispute that medcab can solve, but it's behind a thin mask of incivility... AN/I can often solve that, but often at the cost of compounding the content dispute. Xavexgoem (talk) 06:28, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Of course, that's a legitimate concern. I'm sure we could play around with the wording to get a good balance, i.e. "We can help with issues that are primarily content disputes. For simple user conduct disputes or edit wars, please see the appropriate noticeboard." The Wordsmith_{(formerly known as Firestorm)}^Communicate 13:39, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

The second sentence is good. Figuring out what's primarily a content dispute and what's primarily a conduct dispute is something I'd like mediators to decide, if anything because they're better at it. Xavexgoem (talk) 13:49, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

---

I have just created this article, how do I add it to the list? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2009-09-30/lightworker —Preceding unsigned comment added by Outelligent (talk • contribs) 23:21, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

The bot will add it to the list. Which reminds me, I need to document that part of the process ;-) Xavexgoem (talk) 23:25, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Membership

Hi. How do I join? I would like to help mediate (articles that I don't edit), and also I have a couple articles that might need mediation in the future (1-2 of those that I edit). Dc76\^talk 23:33, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Dc76, glad to have you aboard. To answer your question, you add a user box, such as {{user medcab}} to your user page. PhilKnight (talk) 19:18, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to become a mediation cabal mediator but currently my userpage redirects to Superman and I can't for the life of me put down that ego. Can I still join? --0nonanon0 (talk) 22:11, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, once we decide to adopt a case do I just add myself as an additioal mediator for that article on the MEDCAB page? --0nonanon0 (talk) 22:15, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

your sig (three tildes, usually) to the |mediator= bit in the template at the top of the casepage. Although if you want to be an additional mediator (e.g., someone has already picked it up), you'll want to talk to the initial mediator first. Xavexgoem (talk) 22:22, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

An IRC forum for discussion

I'm happy to see that MedCab has so many more mediators active right now. I was losing optimism for our project, when our backlog of new cases numbered into the teens and we seemed to have very few mediators left. I am very happy to see our recent success and progress. As I consider mediation, and the mediation cabal in particular, as being at the forefront of WP's dispute resolution process, this is very good news indeed.

Therefore, I am starting a discussion on our IRC channel between mediators and any on-lookers to discuss our individual mediations, stories, strategies, and how MedCab and dispute resolution are working as a whole. I plan for it to be held sometime this month (October). If you are interested in having an open discussion and more free communication between DR-oriented Wikipedians, then please reply to this thread so we can organize this properly.

Our IRC forum is #wikipedia-medcab on the freenode network.

Thank you, and I await your reply. Xavexgoem (talk) 00:15, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

• As long as it's a time somewhat convenient for me, I'll be there. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 00:19, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
• \o/ When's the exact time? --Kim Bruning (talk) 03:42, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
• I'm available as well. The Wordsmith_{(formerly known as Firestorm)}^Communicate 04:04, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Aw, three people? What to do, what to do... Xavexgoem (talk) 17:16, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I think the forum is a great idea and appreciate the initiative. I personally don't frequent IRC, so my lack of support is not based on it being a bad idea, just on personal preference. —Finn Casey * * * 19:44, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Zeno's Paradoxes?

The mediator field on the Zeno's Paradoxes discussion is blank. Is there a mediator? I just thought I would check, as a mediation without a mediator is rather odd. —Finn Casey * * * 01:07, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. Xavexgoem (talk) 22:05, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I would have taken it myself on but the case I'm currently mediating is starting to get rolling, and I didn't want to get distracted. —Finn Casey * * * 00:58, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Gibraltar

Could we please have the case on Gibraltar re-opened please, User:Irbisgreif has prematurely closed the case claiming that one editor has withdrawn from mediation and that editors had lost confidence in the mediation process. Editors had in fact expressed doubts about User:Irbisgreif's role as mediatior and no one has withdrawn from the case, though one editor has gotten frustrated with the lack of direction. The only thing expressed about mediation was a consideration for requesting a new mediator. Justin talk 09:09, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Justin himself is the one who used the fact that this was my first case to attack me. Gibnews (a different editor) is no longer co-operating with mediation. I advise Mediators to avoid this case. ---Irbisgreif-(talk | e-mail)-(contribs) 10:10, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

No I did not attack you, I expressed a lack of confidence in your ability to mediate. You failed to grasp the issue, for example a) you got the text under dispute wrong and b) assumed there were only two editors involved when everyone was waiting for your input. This is after we have patiently waited over a week for you to make an input. You said this was your first attempt at mediation, well to be blunt about it, taking constructive criticism as a personal attack says to me you're not cut out for the role. In addition, taking criticism personally and closing the case prematurely, going so far as to advise other mediators to stay away when an editor has made a good faith request for mediation shows a certain lack of maturity. Justin talk 10:33, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

In general, I think if a case is closed without resolution of the editing dispute, it's good practice to give advice on what steps the parties could take. This could include formal mediation, a Request for Comment, or even arbitration. In this case, would suggesting the parties request formal mediation be appropriate? PhilKnight (talk) 13:17, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I did, in fact, suggest this. They need a more experienced mediator than me. ---Irbisgreif-(talk | e-mail)-(contribs) 21:11, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think formal mediation is appropriate, I'd be quite happy to see an RFC though. The problem we've seen is an inexperienced mediator that simply failed to grasp the fundamentals of the dispute and prematurely closed the case. I know you're expeirenced at this, take 5 minutes and have a look at the talk page and you'll see what I mean. Justin talk 13:44, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

If someone is saying that you fail to grasp the dispute, you should ask whomever (Justin, in this case) how they see the dispute. How you can better accommodate them, etc... bearing in mind -- as I'm sure you did -- that how one side sees the dispute is often different than how the other side sees the dispute. This is important, as miscommunication between parties is the first thing that needs fixing. Often, you'll find 3 distinct disputes where one was reported. One might be NOR/V/RS-centered, one might be NPOV-centered, and another might be something that you (the mediator) can detect but that no-one else can (since parties tend to talk over each other after a point). Then synthesis these.
This is important largely because you need to be seen as giving the parties their fair shake. It is always preferable for a mediator to appear to be "siding" (i.e., talking-too-much-with) with one side than for the parties to distance themselves from you. So long as you can keep the balance in the end... Xavexgoem (talk) 20:12, 29 October 2009 (UTC) Or something like that :-p

The problem was that one editor declared further discussion worthless, as he was right, (Gibnews). Justin's comments about my "failure to understand" just added fuel to my stress. I'll be waiting a while before trying mediation again. ---Irbisgreif-(talk | e-mail)-(contribs) 21:11, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Don't sweat it. Everybody screws up their first few times, and then you learn and move on. Sometimes I still mess things up, then I have to figure out a way to fix it and resolve the issues. If mediation is something you are interested in, then please don't let one bad experience keep you away. The Wordsmith^Communicate 03:20, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think anyone has an issue with someone screwing up, I really do take issue with the comment advising other more experienced mediators to avoid the case. Justin talk 08:59, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Relisting. Will update in about 10 minutes. Xavexgoem (talk) 09:23, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Merci. Justin talk 10:17, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Diablada

I'm sorry for asking but I'm wondering if the Mediation Cabal I've filled in Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-10-18/Diablada is in order or is there anything missing? Because it haven't been attended yet and we're wondering how much does it take. Things got pretty tense there, to avoid more conflicts I'm not doing any editions till a mediator can come to help us out, but I hope that doesn't look like if the article is inactive. Can anyone please give it a look and tell me if there is something missing there?

Thank you --Erebedhel - Talk 06:26, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Opened. Xavexgoem (talk) 21:11, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Mediator

I would like to help out here - by what process can I become a mediator? Reubzz (talk) 04:55, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

You just kinda start doing it. ---Irbisgreif-(talk | e-mail)-(contribs) 04:58, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Haha, alright. Reubzz (talk) 05:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

There used to be a place where people could sign their name if they were interested in mediating a case, but I think its been done away with. The Wordsmith^Communicate 05:26, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

It was never updated. The nitpicker in me... had to delete it... Xavexgoem (talk) 05:28, 5 November 2009 (UTC) we could always start it back up again... might be a good idea, actually, given the traffic we've been getting.

Better description on how to submit a request needed!

I'm trying to submit the Blood+ article. However, when I put in "Blood+" and click on the "Click here to file request" button, it looks like it loads the actual article up. For example, if I do a preview, it looks like I would be submitting an update to the actual article. Yet when I follow the links for some of the open cases it looks like they link back to more info under MedCab, use a special template, etc. I tried with and without the beta. Am I missing something? I don't want to cause trouble by editing the main article! Thanks! Argel1200 (talk) 20:54, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, okay, I think I get it. I'm supposed to append the article to the current string in the text widget. Maybe you could provide an example? Argel1200 (talk) 21:32, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Went and updated the text to hopefully clarify things better. I also created an example but decided to comment it out. But it should be in the code if someone wants to look at it or resurrect it. Argel1200 (talk) 21:48, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for that :-) Yeah, we got lots of trouble with this method. Believe me when I say it's better than all the others we've tried. (What would be really great is if there was a way to automatically prefend (coined, Xavexgoem, (c) ... crap, GFDL) the original string to the article name and leave the box empty. Xavexgoem (talk) 12:12, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

No cases?

I've noticed that there have been no new cases pending for a while now. While this is something I haven't seen in a while, it could be either good or bad. Does it mean that we have enough mediators to handle all the MedCab-worthy disputes around the wiki? Or does it mean that people having content disputes don't know about us or don't value us? Are we not fulfilling our purpose, or are we exceeding expectations? With no pending cases, now might be a good time for some naval-gazing. The Wordsmith^Communicate 17:22, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Not sure I like this better than when there's 6 cases on the queue and no-one to pick them up. Usually there are at least two semi-stale new cases... Xavexgoem (talk) 17:43, 13 November 2009 (UTC) Our traffic is much greater than MedCom, however... so I don't think it's a failure of the process.

New case not showing up

Just put up a new case today, but for some reason, it doesn't show up in the listing. Can somebody help out it's here--Ramdrake (talk) 03:07, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

The listing process takes some time. Look for it to show up in the next day or so. If it still does not, we will look into it. Thanks for the good work! —Finn Casey * 03:34, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

URGENT notice for cabalists

It appears that MedCabBot, which is responsible for maintaining the lists of cases, is broken. This means that we actually do have new cases, but the bot never added them to the template. I dropped a note at the bot owner's talk page, but it seems we're on our own for the time being. I added new cases to the appropriate section, but it needs to be maintained now. Periodically searching for Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-11-(today's date) and adding them to the template is the easiest way to do it. Also, for anyone who has an open case, please check to verify that your case is listed on the Open Cases section. If not, please add it in the appropriate manner. Thank you. The Wordsmith^Communicate 09:14, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Check Category:Wikipedia Medcab new cases, instead. I just checked template:medcabstatus, and that doesn't appear to be the issue (it's what the bot reads). Xavexgoem (talk) 10:32, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. The issue is with pywikipedia, not the bot itself. MedcabBot, RFCbot, the MiszaBots and even Cluebot are all down. The Wordsmith^Communicate 10:40, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

A question on the minimum requirements necessary for mediating a case

Is it normal that an editor with 10 days' experience on Wikipedia would become a mediator? There was a request for mediation put through for a highly problematic article, Race and intelligence and this mediator showed up. However, I am wondering how, with only 10 days' experience, he could be familiar enough with the intricacies of Wikipedia to mediate such a troubled article? Can somebody please look into the situation? Thanks!--Ramdrake (talk) 23:29, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Huh! I was fairly new when I started on MedCab... I'll check it out. A lot of folks find something they really want to do on WP and then register an account, where before they were anons. Xavexgoem (talk) 23:41, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but this is a case which really needs an experienced editor, familiar with our policies. One of the participants has already threatened to pull out of the mediation if we indeed have an inexperienced editor.--Ramdrake (talk) 23:43, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

It is not a threat: I have pulled out. Why on earth should a complicated case be guided by a total novice? That is a waste of my time. If Xavexgoem (talk · contribs) had volunteered to do this after less than 10 days/less than 500 edits editing experience under that username, I would have had a similar reaction. Mathsci (talk) 00:02, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I can pick it up as co-mediator, if you'd like. Just bear in mind that MedCab is very ad-hoc: we don't control who picks up what cases. Anyone can volunteer. But if you want some experience behind the mediation, I'm more than happy to participate. Xavexgoem (talk) 00:09, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

This greatly upsets me. While it was deleted from my profile page, I noted there that I was a "snooper" around WP to get a sense of the structure, the rules, and the guidelines. With this understanding, and a real world series of expierence in matters resolving conflicts, I thought the Mediation Cabal would be the perfect thing to fit my interests. With this particular case, even with a low edit count, I have managed it efficently. I have already delved great amounts of time into this case. I have ready lengthy statements, reviewed long-winded debates that are achieved for many years, read online articles (off-WP) on the disputed subject, read lengthy statements, and read and analyized the relevant guidelines. So far, the case has been managed professionally. I have sent out notifications to the parties involved when deadlines were present, I have managed a process that so far has been civil and in good-faith, and I have even been able to (for the time being) make the disputed content on the page at issue stable.

With all due respect, what more can you ask for? I have done so much to prepare, I really think a low edit count is not a controlling issue in regards to this. I have managed the case with all professional ability I have. What more? Reubzz (talk) 00:10, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think a low edit count is an issue. However, experience in how Wikipedia content policies are applied in difficult situations such as the one in this article may be a limiting factor. But otherwise, I will join the chorus and say you've done a good job so far.--Ramdrake (talk) 00:31, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I have also extended an offer to participate as a co-mediator, to give Reubzz guidance in this mediation. He seems to be doing a fine job, but I am willing to supervise him and step in if it becomes clear that he is in over his head. The Wordsmith^Communicate 00:33, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I think that working on this case while benefitting from the advice of two experienced mediators will be a great learning experience for him. Now, let's try to get Mathsci to reconsider and rejoin the mediation... :) --Ramdrake (talk) 00:41, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I certainly agree to participate if two experienced mediators are involved. I also think that Reubzz can remain involved as an apprentice mediator. This particular article is complicated, so it was not appropriate for someone with less than 150 namespace edits to act as sole mediator. Since it's early morning here in France, I'll wait until tomorrow to see how this sorts itself out. Bonne nuit. Mathsci (talk) 00:51, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!--Ramdrake (talk) 00:53, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I just want to note, as an involved party, that I welcome the involvement of a new pair of eyes. With proper guidance, I think Reubuzz can help this mediation case make great progress in the article. T34CH (talk) 01:25, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I would appreciate the assistance of more expierenced mediators and welcome their help in this case. Reubzz (talk) 01:34, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Just a note, informal mediation is completely voluntary from all sides. That means that if the editors involved don't care for the mediator who has volunteered to take the case, they can decline in favor of a new mediator. I'm currently assisting a case where the participants weren't satisfied with the previous mediator, and asked for a new one. So with that in mind, I don't think having requirements for the cabal is necessary. If you don't like the mediator for any reason, just request a new one. When I take interest in a case I first ask everyone involved whether they want my assistance or not. I haven't had a person decline, but if they did I would put the case back to "new" and let someone else have a crack at it. -- Atama頭 20:37, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Thoughts on mediation, DR process

I have been thinking about the process for content-dispute resolution. What happens if after MedCab and then MedCom, no consensus can be reached? On a purely content area, what is to happen if there is no enforcement body or binding-decision process for resolving it? - there is one in place for user issues (ArbCom), why not have one for the other branch?

Just some thoughts that came to mind. Cheers! --Reubzz (talk) 19:22, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

In theory, if every single tool we have for dispute resolution is exhausted, something is wrong with one or more users. I would suggest that if there are two or more disagreeing editors who simply can't compromise after every attempt has been made and continue to argue, that in itself would constitute as a user conduct issue. I believe that ArbCom handles such things currently, see very first line of Wikipedia:Arbitration where it states, "The arbitration process within the Wikipedia community exists to impose binding solutions to Wikipedia disputes that neither communal discussion, administrators, nor mediation have been able to resolve." That does include content disputes. I don't know that having a content-specific version of ArbCom is necessary, it depends on how many cases they get that involve pure content disputes. That might be better taken up with WT:AC. -- Atama頭 21:40, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Alright, interesting. I was not aware that it had such broad jurisdiction. Reubzz (talk) 21:48, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, it only sort of includes content disputes. Arbcom rarely handles them, and it's frowned upon by the community. When the conduct side outweighs the content side, then ArbCom comes in. But it rarely (if ever?) makes judgments on an article. Xavexgoem (talk) 20:00, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

There is no user notification template

just like there is no cabal. So, to make it easier for us to determine if we have consent from all parties for mediation, i've revived an old template that Nicholas Turnbull (the second MedCab Coordinator) made. It can be posted to the users' talk pages, and used as following:

{{subst:Medcab participant|YourName|date/casename}}

for example:

== Mediation Cabal: Request for participation == Dear Mediation Cabal/2009 Archive 3: Hello, my name is Napoleon; I'm a mediator from the Mediation Cabal, an informal mediation initiative here on Wikipedia. You've recently been named as a dispute participant in a mediation request here: Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/1789-07-16/Bastille I'd like to invite you to join this mediation to try to get this dispute resolved, if you wish to do so; note, however, it is entirely your choice whether or not you participate, and if you don't wish to take part in it that's perfectly alright. Please read the above request and, if you do feel that you'd like to take part, please make a note of this on the mediation request page. If you have any questions relating to this or any other dispute, please do let me know; I'll try my best to help you out. Thank you very much. Best regards, The WordsmithCommunicate 04:49, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I think i'll close with a haiku:

Here is a template
Feel free to use it, or don't
There is no cabal

The Wordsmith^Communicate 04:49, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Nicholas Turnbull

The master of the "please do"

Gone, the cabal moves

--Xavexgoem (talk) 20:05, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

My Medcab case is slipping throught the cracks.

My medcab case, Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-07-20/List of charities accused of ties to terrorism seems to be slipping through the cracks. The last exchange in the case brought all parties to agree that the matter could perhaps be resolved in the reliable sources notice board diff diff, however I have not heard back from User:GRuban, the other participant, and our moderator, User:Vicenarian has retired. For my part, I consider the issues here to be unresolved and need some help from medcab to keep my case from simply dying. Thanks in advance. Bonewah (talk) 14:18, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Bonewah, thanks for the concise description. I've added myself as co-mediator, and hopefully I'll be able to be of some assistance. PhilKnight (talk) 17:31, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Prospective Cabalist question - agreement to mediate

I'm sure there is no one there to answer this question since the Cabal does not exist, but let me ask it just to hear the ball bearings rattle around in my head: I note that in formal mediation proceedings all participants in the dispute are required to agree to mediation before taking the case, but there's no such requirement on the request page here. The suggestions say that any party can back out, but is it just presumed that all the disputants are in until someone stops participating or backs out? —TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 22:56, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't make that presumption, I don't proceed with mediation unless everyone agrees with it. Anyone can leave mediation or choose to enter it, at their leisure, and that shouldn't affect whether or not the mediation can proceed as long as it's being productive. But if a case mentions a list of people I will try to get an answer from each person before I get started. -- Atama頭 23:07, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

It really depends on the case. Depending on the breadth, sometimes you can treat a request as a plain request for help. For those cases, I tend to stay on the talk page of the article and kinda stealth it :-) Xavexgoem (talk) 01:37, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Please help

The situation at talk:Monty Hall problem is really getting out of control. I don't know if the requests are treated in strict FIFO order or what, but if someone could take a look at this issue (even to indicate an expected timeframe when/if someone might get engagaed) it would be quite helpful. Thanks. -- Rick Block (talk) 15:34, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

They get taken up when they get taken up. I try to restrict myself to only one or two mediation cases at a time, because they can take up a good amount of my Wikipedia time. I try to take the older ones first, and avoid cases that seem over my head (like Israel-Palestine conflicts), or cases where I have a "past" with one of the participants, etc. MEDCAB is like RFC, where you just "put it out there" and see who responds, it's not like AfD or Arbitration where there are formal processes governing how long discussion lasts or how quickly something gets addressed (or in what order). I hope that helps explain things better (and to be honest, I haven't been doing MEDCAB for a very long time so my perspective may not be 100% accurate). -- Atama頭 19:13, 15 December 2009 (UTC)