On Feb 1, 2007, at 10:31, Guettarda wrote:
On 2/1/07, Dan Collins
<en.wp.st47(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/1/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic(a)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