I see a problem case for our "Mediation Cabal" here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-12-08_Beit...
Mediator's result: "Pursuant to the First Amendment, the photos are allowed. Wikihttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Wikizach e http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:EAZach| talkhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Wikizach19:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)"
There are two main problems with this: #1 - the dispute was never about the "First Amendment", but about whether the photos and quotations in question were violations of NPOV standards (and for that matter, whether they were genuine or not). This is not looked at at all by the mediator's result, nor commented on anywhere by the mediator.
#2 - As referenced by another thread on this mailing list, Wikipedia is not bound by the US Constitution nor the First Amendment thereof. Therefore, the "result" of the Mediation has no basis in policy.
I find it to be a bad mediation.
Parker
Looks like this needs to be reviewed. A conclusion should be made based upon WP policy rather than the US constitution.
Mgm
On 1/31/07, Parker Peters parkerpeters1002@gmail.com wrote:
I see a problem case for our "Mediation Cabal" here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-12-08_Beit...
Mediator's result: "Pursuant to the First Amendment, the photos are allowed. Wikihttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Wikizach e http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:EAZach| talkhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Wikizach19:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)"
There are two main problems with this: #1 - the dispute was never about the "First Amendment", but about whether the photos and quotations in question were violations of NPOV standards (and for that matter, whether they were genuine or not). This is not looked at at all by the mediator's result, nor commented on anywhere by the mediator.
#2 - As referenced by another thread on this mailing list, Wikipedia is not bound by the US Constitution nor the First Amendment thereof. Therefore, the "result" of the Mediation has no basis in policy.
I find it to be a bad mediation.
Parker _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 2/1/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@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
On 1/31/07, Parker Peters parkerpeters1002@gmail.com wrote:
I see a problem case for our "Mediation Cabal" here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-12-08_Beit...
Mediator's result: "Pursuant to the First Amendment, the photos are allowed. Wikihttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Wikizach e http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:EAZach| talkhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Wikizach19:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)"
There are two main problems with this: #1 - the dispute was never about the "First Amendment", but about
whether
the photos and quotations in question were violations of NPOV standards (and for that matter, whether they were genuine or not). This is not looked
at
at all by the mediator's result, nor commented on anywhere by the mediator.
#2 - As referenced by another thread on this mailing list, Wikipedia is not bound by the US Constitution nor the First Amendment thereof. Therefore, the "result" of the Mediation has no basis in policy.
I find it to be a bad mediation.
Parker _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I agree with you, though I haven't reviewed the case yet.
On 2/1/07, Dan Collins en.wp.st47@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/1/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@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.
On 1/31/07, Parker Peters parkerpeters1002@gmail.com wrote:
I see a problem case for our "Mediation Cabal" here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-12-08_Beit...
Mediator's result: "Pursuant to the First Amendment, the photos are allowed. Wikihttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Wikizach e http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:EAZach| talkhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Wikizach19:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)"
There are two main problems with this: #1 - the dispute was never about the "First Amendment", but about
whether
the photos and quotations in question were violations of NPOV
standards
(and for that matter, whether they were genuine or not). This is not looked
at
at all by the mediator's result, nor commented on anywhere by the
mediator.
#2 - As referenced by another thread on this mailing list, Wikipedia
is
not bound by the US Constitution nor the First Amendment thereof.
Therefore,
the "result" of the Mediation has no basis in policy.
I find it to be a bad mediation.
Parker _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I agree with you, though I haven't reviewed the case yet.
-- ST47 Editor, en.wikipedia _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Feb 1, 2007, at 10:31, Guettarda wrote:
On 2/1/07, Dan Collins en.wp.st47@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/1/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@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))
On 2/1/07, Keitei nihthraefn@gmail.com wrote:
On Feb 1, 2007, at 10:31, Guettarda wrote:
On 2/1/07, Dan Collins en.wp.st47@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/1/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@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