[WikiEN-l] A Problem Mediation to consider

[Parker Peters]

Keitei,

I've just made a quick check and you appear, despite your comments to the
contrary, to be doing nothing about this troubling case as of the time I'm
sending this email to you. I'm CC'ing you just so that I'm sure it gets to
you with all haste.

- on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Beit_Hanoun_November_2006_incident,
user:Ideogram states that he is closing the mediation. He is not listed as a
mediator on the case.

- on the mediation page, no change at all.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-12-08_Beit_Hanoun_November_2006_incident

- On the mediation talk page, an anon has written something about the
finalization of the case, but no reaction.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-12-08_Beit_Hanoun_November_2006_incident

- On Wikizach's talk page, no mention of this case.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Wikizach

I understand that there are reasons people don't get to these things, but if
Keitei is incapacitated, one would hope another member of the Mediation
Cabal would stand up.

Parker


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Parker Peters <parkerpeters1002 at gmail.com>
Date: Feb 1, 2007 2:29 PM
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] First Amendment? - a Problem Mediation to consider
To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at lists.wikimedia.org>



On 2/1/07, Keitei <nihthraefn at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Feb 1, 2007, at 10:31, Guettarda wrote:
>
> > On 2/1/07, Dan Collins <en.wp.st47 at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> On 2/1/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm < macgyvermagic at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Looks like this needs to be reviewed. A conclusion should be made
> >>> based
> >>> upon
> >>> WP policy rather than the US constitution.
> >>>
> >>> Mgm
> >
> >
> > It's actually par for the course in MedCab cases.  The MedCab
> > provides for
> > informal mediation and a forum for discussion.  That's a useful
> > role, but
> > one that seems to be routinely ignored.  The role of a mediator
> > isn't to
> > judge the situation, but rather, to get people to talk and listen to
> > one-another.  So any "conclusion" beyond that made by the
> > participants in
> > inappropriate, regardless of whether it was based on the US
> > constitution or
> > Wikipedia policy.  The role of mediation is not to draw
> > conclusions.  That
> > an informal body, with no selection process, no official standing,
> > and no
> > oversight, should make "rulings" is mind-boggling.  Especially a
> > body that
> > seems, half the time, to be staffed by rank newbies who know little
> > about
> > policy.
>
> If mediators are acting as judges where they should not, we ask that
> you bring it up with the coordinators ([[Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/
> Coordinators desk]]). From there, we try to convince said problem
> mediators that they have to mediate and not arbitrate, and if that
> doesn't work, they will be asked to resign from the case. Repeat
> problem mediators are asked not to take cases any longer.
>
> Of course this doesn't ensure that cases won't be total disasters,
> but the point is informal, fast, and not heavily regulated. Parties
> are encouraged to speak up if they don't think the mediator is
> helping though.
>
> --keitei (MedCab coordinator (along with Cowman109))
>

The mediator seems to think he is to act as a judge, keitei.

My analysis of the mediation goes back a bit further now that I've had some
time to look at it, and indicates some other serious problems with the case:

- the mediator did little to actually contact those relevant to the dispute.


- the mediator stated a time period at which he would "make [the] decision",
but did not discuss things with any other members, on the mediation page,
mediation talk page, article talk page, user talk pages, or anywhere else.

- comments questioning the mediator's impartiality because of his line of
work are in the history of the mediation, but they appear to have been
reverted rather than discussed openly. Any question of the mediator's
impartiality calls into question the mediation process.

Between this and a mediation "decision" that has nothing to do with
wikipedia policy or with the case at hand, and my little robot's making
"Danger, Will Robinson" noises...

Parker