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...
- 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...
- 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@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@lists.wikimedia.org
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