Forum:Mediation

Forums: Index > Village Dump > Mediation

Note: This topic has been unedited for 6592 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over.

The recent fallout over sockpuppets and such has brought to my attention a basic issue with well, human life. I propose now that we have a dedicated mediation page for when disagreements occur, and before they become strife ridden, where two parties should request a mediator. For now, I intend to act as a mediator between parties.

In fact, I propose enforced mediation for when any argument becomes decidedly unfriendly. Most importantly, I don't want anyone being afraid to voice opinions to each other because of admin status, newbie status, divinity status. Does this seem like a good idea, or a bad one? --Chronarion 22:33, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Zomg, I do mediation on en.wp and it isn't so fun... but I suppose it's a good idea. I volunteer to mediate as well, would be easier here as I know all the policies and such... --KATIE!! 22:35, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm. I have a bad feeling about this, honestly. Reminds be too much of arbcom. Might I make a suggestion? Instead of jumping into something as formal and policy-like as "mediation" why don't we just set out a page that keeps an up-to-date list of the admins and bureaucrats and says something to the effect of "if you are having a problem here with another person, go to one of these people and they will listen to you and try to help you out." That would probably still put you (Chron) in the position of being the guy people go to when there is a problem with an admin, but I think this less formal way of dealing with things might be better. That's my 2 cents anyway. ---Rev. Isra (talk) 01:55, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Idk... that seems like putting the admin above everyone else... and who says that they're even gonna give a shit? I don't know, mediation doesn't seem like such a great idea to me either... but if we were to do something to that effect I think it should include (respected) regular users, as well as admins.   t o m p k i n s  blah. ﺞوﻦ וףה ՃՄ ண்ஸ ފއހ วอฏม +տ trade websites 02:05, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I think having a mediation page like this would be rather...silly. And overly hopeful. And likely to cause more problems than it solves. And probably rarely used and quickly abandoned. And too Wikipedish. Perhaps if we used Isra's idea and had admins and respected regular users voluntarily offer to sign their names on it to be mediators if someone requests it. I think anything more formal than that is asking for trouble and bureaucracy. --—rc (t) 03:11, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Meh meh meh. Mediation isn't like ArbCom at all. It's not very formal or bureaucratic-y either. But it doesn't strike me as Uncyclopedic either. People just need to... not argue... yeah... --KATIE!! 04:45, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Not at first, I'm sure, but I think it could escalate, and I don't think it's the best way to work out disagreements. And I don't even know what ArbCom is (well, I know what it means but I don't know the details) and there's no way I'm wading into Wikipedia to find out, so I wasn't comparing the two things directly. Also, clowns. --—rc (t) 05:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I think that we should maintain an easily accessible list of mediators and have a simple policy of, if you have a problem, talk to one of these people. The list should be somwhat selective in so far as we want to make sure that most/all of our mediators can act impartially and should probably contain a little bit of information about each mediator and their possible biases. --Sir gwax (talk) 15:28, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree 100%. We should also make sure that the list is limited to people who are around and active and will therefore be responsive. ---Rev. Isra (talk) 01:12, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... Uncyc isn't Wikipedia, and we have IRC for solving problems. On the other hand, I'd love to help, but is the whole thing necessay? --officer designate Lugiatm MUN NS CM ZM WH 15:06, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

IRC should not be used as a means for solving problems. No offense intended to anyone, but most of the time IRC is rife with banal crap and I don't like seeing it used as more than a means for quickly getting ahold of someone. Additionally, it doesn't help that IRC conversations disappear into the aether without an easily accessible log (like page histories). Oh, and then it's very hard to coordinate getting people on IRC at the same time. I mean, I rarely use IRC anymore because I just don't have the time to sit around and read the drivel that's being spouted by whatever random n00b is being a gobshite on a given day.

Also, sure we're not wikipedia but there are some things that they do well (and plenty they don't); there's no reason to discount an idea just because they do it. --Sir gwax (talk) 15:28, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you that IRC is not a good problem solving method, and would add that in the past if has a poor track record of making some things worse. ---Rev. Isra (talk) 01:12, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

MY MIDDLE NAME IS RIFE!!! Actually.. it's my last name... but now I've said too much.   t o m p k i n s  blah. ﺞوﻦ וףה ՃՄ ண்ஸ ފއހ วอฏม +տ trade websites 18:02, 3 April 2006 (PDT)

I would love to offer myself as a mediator should such things be required. ~Sir Rangeley GUN WotM UotM EGA +S (talk) 01:19, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, come to think of it, I wouldn't mind being a mediator either. However, I may be slightly biased in certain areas... but... I can change.   t o m p k i n s  blah. ﺞوﻦ וףה ՃՄ ண்ஸ ފއހ วอฏม +տ trade websites 01:22, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

All prominant uncyclopedians should volunteer to address people's problems if they can. This would increase the number of available people someone could go to if they are having problems. ---Rev. Isra (talk) 01:31, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Could someone link me to the cases that justifie this concern? couse I havent seen that much troubles. Most discussions are settled down peacefully. And most admins are pretty reasonable when users approach to them with some problem I think. Do we really need this?--Rataube 20:34, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd rather not mention any that I may be aware of and I think that, as a general policy, mediation related matters should not be publicized and discussed by people outside the issue. This might be a little difficult considering that everything on the wiki is public, but at the least, we can not draw attention to things. --Sir gwax (talk) 20:46, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

To my knowledge there is only one major incident that prompted this and it is very complicated. It started, though, when a user made a complaint on a project page and escalated when as a result it was not dealt with swiftly. So this might have helped in that particular case. However, this could find greater use than that: it isn't that rare for new users to have questions or concerns that they don't know how to get answered. I think having a page listing the people who can help out and what they do would be useful for things like that too. ---Rev. Isra (talk) 22:30, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I think what we could do with is getting the new user log extension installed (as en.wp have) this would make it possible to have an (unofficial) welcoming committee then we can use easily add template:welcome to newbs talk pages that could say things like, ask at the dump for help, or an (active) admin or IRC or whatever, can any pester wikia to get it instaled (of course it would probbaly also be useful against the "on Crack" style vandals)--The Right Honourable Maj Sir Elvis UmP KUN FIC MDA VFH Bur. CM and bars UGM F@H (Petition) 22:51, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I think we should get the new user log extension installed so we can dump the welcome templates on. Also, i've read the commentary, and I think that there should be a list of mediators, if not a formal process, so that people feel they have somewhere to turn, even if it isn't to admins, which may feel kind of 'uber'. Are there non admins as well as admins who would like to mediate? --Chronarion 18:53, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I count two non-admins who have volunteered in this thread. However, they are both basically at the front of the line for recieving op. --22:35, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

See I think this is symptomatic of something that has been worrying me for a while; admins being viewed (and encouraging the view) of being "uber" I've always tried to encourage the idea that admins are simply users that have a (small number) of extra toys (rollbacks, protections, bans and deletes basicaly) but I've noticed more and more admins setting themselves up as some kind of elite, for an example of this check the rules on VFS, and non-admins users are only encouraging them. I don't actuly now if there is a solution to this (or if anyone else cares) but I thought I should just raise it as a a worry.--The Right Honourable Maj Sir Elvis UmP KUN FIC MDA VFH Bur. CM and bars UGM F@H (Petition) 23:28, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I concur and have been concerned about the matter myself as well. Also, I'm more than willing to mediate if asked to. --Sir gwax (talk) 00:13, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Eh, I dont think its anything new. I always saw the admins as 'elite' when I was not one, on the sole fact that they were generally the more active people, and have 'Sir' in their name. I think it could be problematic if we reach a point that no members are willing to do anything and leave it all to the admins, but I do not think we are there at this point in time. ~Sir Rangeley GUN WotM UotM EGA +S (talk) 05:27, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, then obviously we need to give out more awards to non-admins and get more people with Sir prefixes. That and I think the new bit about ranks helps as far as giving people non-admins to look up to. --Sir gwax (talk) 14:09, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

The Ranks and Order are only meant to be a bit of fun no0one was surposed to take it seriously, AHHHHHhhhhh what have I created?!? ;-)--The Right Honourable Maj Sir Elvis UmP KUN FIC MDA VFH Bur. CM and bars UGM F@H (Petition) 22:30, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Mediation may be ugly, but it could be necessary. Want an example? If we have mediation, the talk pages and user spaces of articles can be safe for all who view them, and those users never need touch on the mediation pages. It sounds like a good idea to me. --Ж WHEEEEE! 22:39, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Insuficient example, that heppened more than 4 months ago, uncyclopedia is not euroipodspedia. But if you insist that you want this... whatever...--Rataube 01:00, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Action?

It sort of seems like there is a consensus around having some sort of mediation. Personally I think mediation should still be requested from a particular person so as to avoid the "whose job is this?" problem we experienced earlier. Either way, however, we need a list of people who will volunteer to mediate. I also like Gwax's idea of including a short summary of who you are and what you do so the user requesting moderation isn't picking blind. I propose we start this thing off by having people who are willing to moderate add a short description of themselves on a page tenatively called Uncyclopedia:Mediators. ---Rev. Isra (talk) 23:18, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

You may want to look at Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal. This sounds uncyclopedic enough for us to shamelessly copy it! - Sir Sikon [Guest] Ub5.10 Fx1.5 F@H NS³ FIC CM² 12:25, 11 April 2006 (UTC)