MNH is getting pretty out of hand and many people (myself included) think some sort of ban is in order -- please see the section on him at the former Problem Users page -- http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflicts_between_users#Mr-Natural-Health
Thanks, Brian
At Sun, 07 Dec 2003 11:58:24 +0100, Viajero wrote (in part):
Hi all,
I am afraid I spoke to soon. Mr Natural-Health was initially cowered by RK's agressive edits and hostile comments. His first response was several anonymous personal attacks against RK on the Talk pages. Then he hit upon the idea of listing him (also anonymously) on VfA to be de-sysoped -- only to be told that RK wasn't a sysop to begin with.
[snip]
Brian Corr wrote:
MNH is getting pretty out of hand and many people (myself included) think some sort of ban is in order -- please see the section on him at the former Problem Users page -- http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflicts_between_users#Mr-Natural-Health
Could perhaps someone familiar with the dispute try to talk reason into him? It's clear from my brief perusal that some of his actions lately have been not particularly polite, but he was also involved in an edit-war with RK, and RK is himself known for not being particularly polite or willing to work with others, so that could well have provoked the hostile response from MNH.
-Mark
On 12/07/03 at 01:46 PM, Delirium delirium@rufus.d2g.com said:
Could perhaps someone familiar with the dispute try to talk reason into him? It's clear from my brief perusal that some of his actions lately
Muriel has been very persistent in trying to get him to chill out, but he takes no heed of her excellent advice.
V.
Brian Corr wrote:
MNH is getting pretty out of hand and many people (myself included) think some sort of ban is in order -- please see the section on him at the former Problem Users page -- http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflicts_between_users#Mr-Natural-Health
Should the Case of Mr-Natural-Health be the first to be considered by the Arbitration ... hey, what are we anyway? Council? Board? Committee? Directorate? Brigade? Commissariat?
-- the Epoptic Arbiter
Sean Barrett wrote:
Brian Corr wrote:
MNH is getting pretty out of hand and many people (myself included) think some sort of ban is in order -- please see the section on him at the former Problem Users page -- http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflicts_between_users#Mr-Natural-Health
Should the Case of Mr-Natural-Health be the first to be considered by the Arbitration ... hey, what are we anyway? Council? Board? Committee? Directorate? Brigade? Commissariat?
I believe there was a general consensus that mediation should come before arbitration.
Ec
The Epopt (Sean Barrett) wrote:
Brian Corr wrote:
MNH is getting pretty out of hand and many people (myself included) think some sort of ban is in order -- please see the section on him at the former Problem Users page -- http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflicts_between_users#Mr-Natural-Health
Should the Case of Mr-Natural-Health be the first to be considered by the Arbitration ... hey, what are we anyway? Council? Board? Committee? Directorate? Brigade? Commissariat?
Not yet. But it might be the first case for the Mediation Cabal. ^_^
-- Toby
From: Sean Barrett sean@epoptic.org Organization: Boskonia Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Sun, 07 Dec 2003 13:52:45 -0800 To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] contributions of User:Mr-Natural-Health
Brian Corr wrote:
MNH is getting pretty out of hand and many people (myself included) think some sort of ban is in order -- please see the section on him at the former Problem Users page -- http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflicts_between_users#Mr-Natural-H ealth
Should the Case of Mr-Natural-Health be the first to be considered by the Arbitration ... hey, what are we anyway? Council? Board? Committee? Directorate? Brigade? Commissariat?
-- the Epoptic Arbiter
First, is hope of mediation abandoned in this case?
Second, what is the question for arbitration?
Third, who invokes arbitration?
Fred
Fred Bauder wrote: First, is hope of mediation abandoned in this case?
I think mediation has already been tried. Both Ed Poor and I have e-mailed him and many users have tried communicating with him on his talk page, but he now seems to make no contributions other than comments on talk pages criticising and provoking RK.
Third, who invokes arbitration?
Perhaps if anyone suggests it be invoked and no-one objects then it just is. There are numerous calls on the "conflicts between users" page for this user to be banned, so it seems clear that arbitration should be invoked.
Angela.
________________________________________________________________________ BT Yahoo! Broadband - Save £80 when you order online today. Hurry! Offer ends 21st December 2003. The way the internet was meant to be. http://uk.rd.yahoo.com/evt=21064/*http://btyahoo.yahoo.co.uk
From: Angela sloog77@yahoo.co.uk Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2003 05:57:12 +0000 (GMT) To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] How and When is Arbitration Invoked?
Fred Bauder wrote: First, is hope of mediation abandoned in this case?
I think mediation has already been tried. Both Ed Poor and I have e-mailed him and many users have tried communicating with him on his talk page, but he now seems to make no contributions other than comments on talk pages criticising and provoking RK.
Yes, informal attempts have been made, but that is not mediation as we envision it. I suggest we try it if the parties are willing.
Third, who invokes arbitration?
Perhaps if anyone suggests it be invoked and no-one objects then it just is. There are numerous calls on the "conflicts between users" page for this user to be banned, so it seems clear that arbitration should be invoked.
Angela.
So, who would decide and what are the procedures then? (Understanding that the mediation-arbitration scheme is not effective until January 1)
You all seem to define the question as "Should Mr. Natural Health be banned" But larger questions exist regarding the scientist point of view and the behavior of his opponents.
Fred
Fred Bauder wrote:
First, is hope of mediation abandoned in this case?
Angela wrote:
I think mediation has already been tried. Both Ed Poor and I have e-mailed him and many users have tried communicating with him on his talk page, but he now seems to make no contributions other than comments on talk pages criticising and provoking RK.
But did you try as individual users or as part of the mediation committee? I think (hope!) that people will react differently to an approach by the mediation committee than to what they might see as random input. So maybe any "official" mediation needs to start with an introduction of the mediator(s) and an explanation of the role of the mediation committee. I think it also needs to start with an agreement from both parties to work with the mediator(s). I can't see this working at all without that step.
I'm still not really clear how this is supposed to work anyway. Are we to mediate individually, perhaps with assigned conflicts? Or should the mediation committee as a whole be directed to a conflict to start mediation?
Do we have a page set up yet explaining the role of the mediation committee? I'll set one up at [[Wikipedia:Mediation committee]], it can be deleted if I missed one elsewhere.
Regards
sannse
p.s. you might have noticed, I'm pushing for us to be a committee - seems an appropriate commentary on our likely effectiveness </pessimism>
From: "sannse" sannse@delphiforums.com
Fred Bauder wrote:
Angela wrote:
Do we have a page set up yet explaining the role of the mediation
committee?
I'll set one up at [[Wikipedia:Mediation committee]], it can be deleted if
I
missed one elsewhere.
There were some pages sent up previously that tried to explain the general overview of mediation and arbitration [[Wikipedia:Mediation Committee]] [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Commitee]] and [[Wikipedia:Mediation and Arbitration (proposal)]].
Since you guys are now a duly constituted committee it would seen that you and Jimbo should decide what kind of structure is best for your mutual operations. Just remember that it is supposed to be consensual, i.e. the mediators are trying to reach an agreement between the parties concerned, and you should also be flexible to do it any way (individually, as a group, etc.) as the situation demands.
Alex R. aka [[en:user:alex756]]
Alex R.wroteL
From: "sannse"
Do we have a page set up yet explaining the role of the mediation
committee?
I'll set one up at [[Wikipedia:Mediation committee]], it can be deleted
if
I missed one elsewhere.
There were some pages sent up previously that tried to explain the general overview of mediation and arbitration [[Wikipedia:Mediation Committee]] [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Commitee]] and [[Wikipedia:Mediation and
Arbitration
(proposal)]].
Since you guys are now a duly constituted committee it would seen that you and Jimbo should decide what kind of structure is best for your mutual operations. Just remember that it is supposed to be consensual, i.e. the mediators are trying to reach an agreement between the parties concerned, and you should also be flexible to do it any way (individually, as a
group,
etc.) as the situation demands.
Thanks Alex, [[Wikipedia:Mediation committee]] is now a redirect to [[Wikipedia:Mediation Committee]] .
Regards
sannse
sannse wrote:
I think mediation has already been tried. Both Ed Poor and I have e-mailed him and many users have tried communicating with him on his talk page, but he now seems to make no contributions other than comments on talk pages criticising and provoking RK.
But did you try as individual users or as part of the mediation committee? I think (hope!) that people will react differently to an approach by the mediation committee than to what they might see as random input. So maybe any "official" mediation needs to start with an introduction of the mediator(s) and an explanation of the role of the mediation committee. I think it also needs to start with an agreement from both parties to work with the mediator(s). I can't see this working at all without that step.
I think this is definitely a good idea. Especially if you can convey to the person that the role of the mediation committee is explicitly to try to resolve disputes to the mutual satisfaction of all, and *not* as a "first cut" vetting candidates for the arbitration committee to ban. People naturally get very defensive when things like potential bans come up, so I think it'll work better if they understand that being involved in mediation is not really a first step towards banning, but instead an honest attempt to resolve the problem. They need to understand that any concerns they have will be given a fair hearing.
Not being on the mediation committee myself I'll leave it you who are to decide how to best organize things, but I think having some sort of central information repository might be a good idea, where each person on the committee can check up on disputes and see who has done what, like "[x] emailed MNH, got a friendly response'" or "[[blah]]: dispute between polish and german nationalists; [y] is currently trying to find a compromise on the talk page".
-Mark
From: "Delirium" delirium@rufus.d2g.com
sannse wrote:
I think mediation has already been tried. Both Ed Poor and I have e-mailed him and many users have tried communicating with him on his talk page, but he now seems to make no contributions other than comments on talk pages criticising and provoking RK.
I think this is definitely a good idea. Especially if you can convey to the person that the role of the mediation committee is explicitly to try to resolve disputes to the mutual satisfaction of all, and *not* as a "first cut" vetting candidates for the arbitration committee to ban.
I agree with this approach. 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.
People naturally get very defensive when things like potential bans come up, so I think it'll work better if they understand that being involved in mediation is not really a first step towards banning, but instead an honest attempt to resolve the problem. They need to understand that any concerns they have will be given a fair hearing.
Here, here (or is that Hear, hear!?) That approach will give the mediation committee, however it decides to operate more legitimacy and usefulness in the long run.
Not being on the mediation committee myself I'll leave it you who are to decide how to best organize things, but I think having some sort of central information repository might be a good idea, where each person on the committee can check up on disputes and see who has done what, like "[x] emailed MNH, got a friendly response'" or "[[blah]]: dispute between polish and german nationalists; [y] is currently trying to find a compromise on the talk page".
This is a good idea as far as giving it some transparancy, but there should also be a way to make the communications private at some point so that people don't think it is a public fight. Also, by posting it on the talk page it will become part of the public record, and even though the arbitrators will be told to ignore all mediation attempts it might be hard to ignore something that is said when the record of it is imbedded in the Wikipedia database. And truly if it is about dialogue sometimes it is better said privately, no?
Alex R. (en:user:alex756)