User talk:SebastianHelm/MedCab
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Thanks
Thanks for looking out for me with my user page. Although I'm still new to
Wikipedia, I'm not nearly as new to arbitration (mediation). Please correct me
if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that there are some people in the Wikipedia
world that would rather have edit wars instead of productive sessions with a
good-faith mediator.
Also, as an arbitrator, I'm am used to inviting the parties myself. In mediation
however, generally the parties agree in advance to mediation. In the case of
Sterling, User:Fahrenheit451 has clearly not contacted the parties in
advance of the mediation. As a mediator, how do you suggest I interpret this
trepidation exhibited by User:Fahrenheit451?
Thanks for your indulgence.
--Leonmon 06:36, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, you're right about people and edit wars. It never occurred to me that
this would be significantly different from the outside world, but now that you
say it it makes sense. Here, they don't have to lose much, except for some
time. In the real world, people stand to lose money if they waste the chance
for mediation. Does that explain the difference?
- Not inviting the other party is very common here, I would guess that's the
case in 75% of all mediations. There is some benefit to that, because it allows
the mediator sometimes to solve the problem even before involving the other
party. (This is e.g. often the case when the requesting party misunderstands
or isn't aware of a Wikipedia policy.) Since I am not a mediator in this case, let
me give you my impression: Fahrenheit451 was fairer in their
request than 90% of requesters. Because I did not want to come to an
unsuspecting user and ask them to join an outrageiously accusotory case, I
started using the discussion page for people's statements, and the project
page for my excerpts and proposals. See [[Wikipedia:Mediation
Cabal/Cases/2006-12-26 Decline of Buddhism in India]] for an example of
that. You may also find User:SebastianHelm/Mediation interesting,
although you'll probably laugh at my amateurish attempts at mediation. :-)
— Sebastian 08:53, 15 November 2007
(UTC)
[edit] Comment on User:Leonmon
It appears that Leonmon abandoned mediation on
[[Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2007-11-
07_Sterling_Management_Systems]] three days ago and the mediation has
since broken down from disruptive comments from User:Misou and the
refusal of User:Ibeme to declare his relationship to the subject of the article
when a WP:COI situation was evident.--
19:37, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
- Leonmon's last note was "I will make another post with questions and
comments within the next couple days. (I apologize for the delay -- I've been
spending most of my time moving my office across town. We just finished
most of it Friday.)"[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%
3AMediation_Cabal%2FCases%2F2007-11-
07_Sterling_Management_Systems&diff=172224107&oldid=171982775]
Since then, they has only made one edit. Maybe ey's still
busy from the repercussions of this move and forgot to update that note. He
wrote "within the next couple days" just 4 days ago. It is not unusual that
people get caught up in other activities a bit longer than planned. Remember
that we're all volunteers here. Why don't you ask Leonmon on eir talk page or
by e-mail? I will also send some questions to you by e-mail. —
Sebastian 20:27, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
I did send him an email yesterday and no response. --
22:14, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
- I see. This is not unusual either. Many people don't reply right away; often
they provide an e-mail account which they don't check from work. What I do
in such cases is alert them on their talk page about the mail. I'll do that for you
right now. — Sebastian 23:41, 21 November
2007 (UTC)
My apologies for the delay. My email went down and I unfortunately did not
receive email for the past couple of days. I'm definitely not asleep at the
switch as User:Fahrenheit451 would believe. This certainly is a case that
will undoubtedly require a significant amount of work. I suspect that
User:Fahrenheit451 is looking for someone to come in and quickly make a
decision as to who is right and who is wrong. My understanding is that as a
Wikimediator, I need to bring parties together. If all the parties were in the
same room, I suspect the first thing I would do is to separate them into
different rooms. I unfortunately don't have that luxury here. My first request
was a one of WP:CIV and WP:AGF. The second request is that all
responses on the mediation page are directed solely to the mediator and no
one else. This isn't the worse I've ever seen but it's definitely not the easiest
-- particularly given the forum. Hopefully, parties will respond over the holiday
weekend and I'll lay out my proposal for proceeding.
(Just a housekeeping issue: Would it be inappropriate to archive all of the
"Discussion" that has already occured on the mediation page in order to start
with at least a pseudo-clean slate?)
Regards, --Leonmon (talk) 05:22, 22
November 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply! You are pretty free here - that's the nice thing about
MedCab as opposed to MedCom. You certainly can archive the discussion if
you feel it's helpful. Anither thing I often do is make it clear beforehand that
WP:RPA is in effect and then delete any personal attacks or off topic
remarks. See the blue box on top of WT:SLR for an example. These guys
are really a bunch of pots and kettles calling each other black! —
Sebastian 06:14, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your help. I archived the bulk of the mediation page this morning.
I laid out more of my expectations and I indicated that I would enlist your
assistance regarding WIKIhoops and WIKIpolicy interpretations if necessary.
I think things will be a little smoother going forward. Again, I appreciate your
help. Have a good holidays!
Regards,
--Leonmon (talk) 20:35, 22
November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Termination of mediation
Sebastian, I think it best to terminate the Sterling Management Systems
mediation as it has gone sour. Stan En notified me that he will not participate
in it and I refuse for the reasons that we have previously discussed. Pull the
plug, please.--Fahrenheit451 ([[User
talk:Fahrenheit451|talk]]) 21:30, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
- Have you asked the mediator? — Sebastian
21:58, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, on his talk page.--Fahrenheit451 ([[User
talk:Fahrenheit451|talk]]) 23:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
- Well, let's see what ey says, then. —
Sebastian 01:37, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Mediation Cabal
Hi. You suggested I could talk to you via email about the problems I had with
MedCab, wasting ten weeks etc.
That's ok with me, if you want to give me your email address, or do you want
me to just talk about it on your talk page? Either is ok with me. Thanks for
being interested.
Sardaka (talk) 12:18, 22 November
2007 (UTC)
Might as well go ahead and give you the outline.
I was having problems with an editor who had been following me around and
driving me crazy. It got to the point where I was always looking over my
shoulder and the only way to shake her off would be to start a new account
with a new name. Naturally, I didn't see why I should have to. I tried informal
things like AN/I and Village Pump, and was told to go to MedCab. You know
the rest. If you want all the gory details, just go to the MedCab link at the top
of my talk page.
I know for a fact that I'm not the only one who has had these problems with
this person, but the details are at MedCab. Thanks for taking an interest.
Sardaka (talk) 10:43, 23 November
2007 (UTC)
- To e-mail me, please use the "E-mail this user" link at the bottom of this
page. Or do you have a particular reason not to use this link? —
Sebastian 17:27, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Sorry I didn't email you at first. I hadn't used these email links before and
didn't realize they were there.
Sardaka (talk) 09:33, 24 November
2007 (UTC)
== Your crusade here:
Wikipedia_talk:Mediation_Cabal#MedCab_coordination_gone_wrong == Sebastian, the reasons why the mediation went bad have been repeatedly
explained to you. I think you are not solving anything, but rather stirring up a
matter that is best let go. I requested the mediation to resolve the bickering
that was going on in the Sterling Management Systems article.
User:Misou put repeated incivility and disruptive comments onto the
mediation page during Leonmon's absense. I find it completely
unacceptable to allow such policy violations in a mediation. Frankly, I have
found you very difficult to get to understand what I tell you. I think your
vendetta on Addhoc is just plain wrong targeting. Misou started the problem.
User:Misou is the correct target. If you still don't understand that, then I
suggest we part company now.--Fahrenheit451
(talk) 03:57, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your message, which reminds me that my motives aren’t as
obvious to others as they are to me.
My motivation for what I am doing here is to help people who are in conflict
situations. What I am getting out of this is experience that helps me grow.
Wikipedia is a good learning environment because it gives me the time to
think before I react; and because I can revisit the conversation later and see
how we reacted to each other.
I am very fortunate and grateful to have grown up in a healthy environment;
and by helping others in need I want to give back to the community.
This may sound too good to be true, especially to people who have made too
many bad experiences. I really feel for people who are so unfortunate as to
have grown up against a backdrop of distrust or even civil war. This is why I
spend more time on WP:SLR than on Mediation Cabal. I am sad that
many people grow up believing that vendetta can solve conflicts – of course it
doesn’t! There are much better techniques, such as [[nonviolent
communication]], which is one of the things I am learning here.
So, when I was offered the position of Mediation Cabal coordinator, I was
honored, but it also offered me a way to multiply my help by helping those
who help others: Mediators. This is why I take the duty of a Mediation Cabal
coordinator to help mediators so seriously, and this is why it is so important
for me that all Mediation Cabal coordinators commit to this principle. When a
Mediation Cabal coordinator insists on violating this principle, it is very, very
bad for Mediation Cabal. If we just let it pass then it will set a bad example,
and discourage good people from mediating. I need to insist on this in all
earnest. — Sebastian 07:57, 5 December
2007 (UTC)
Sebastian, if we don't move on, if you continue this inquest, I think that you
will set a bad example of yourself from the duress you subject participants
who leave a voluntary mediation to, or disagree with your views on what was
wrong with a mediation. I suggest that mediators be advised to not allow
Wikipedia policy violations in a mediation and direct restraining actions to the
violator(s), not those who are not violating. --
18:03, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- That's it now, F451. You know, pointing a finger at others leaves three
pointing back at you... You blew. Now stop accusing others for your own
misbehavior, thanks. Misou (talk) 22:25, 5
December 2007 (UTC)
Misou, looks like you are back at provocation again using scientology-speak
"blew". We don't buy that thought reform stuff here. Please take your
attempts at disruption off of Wikipedia.--Fahrenheit451
(talk) 02:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
