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))