Sleep Medicine Pearls Review of Sleep Medicine Clinical Companion to Sleep Disorders Medicine Second Edition Principles and Practice of Sleep Medicine Sleep Medicine The Promise of Sleep: A Pioneer in Sleep Medicine Explores the Vital Connection Between Health, Happiness, and a Good Night's Sleep Atlas of Sleep Medicine Treating Sleep Disorders: Principles and Practice of Behavioral Sleep Medicine Sleep Medicine

Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

m:uncivility

Please, I would be very happy to have some feedback on m:uncivility. It is no policy. These are just thoughts I had, and threw on the paper. Little gets done about use of threats, insults, swear words, personal attacks and such. And I am bothered by that. It messes with the community spirit, lead some people to leave, or shorten the time before the heart attack of others. And it rarely helps solving edit war. Thanks for any comments you might make.

Note : comments claiming the page is pointless, and I should spell english properly, will be added to the list of uncivilities ;-) User:Anthere

Hey, thanks! I'm glad to see you here. I think your suggestions and comments are both good and interesting. I agree with your sentiment and intent, but not necessarilly with every idea proposed as a soloution. There are many subtleties to be polished. I will respond more precisely in the future, but for now I'm off to bed. Its been a long night! cheers, JackLynch 13:40, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Sleep well Jack. It is a collection of thoughts. It does not mean that all are applicable or even suitable by some standards. But standards may not be identical among wikipedias themselves. May they give ideas and foster thoughts to the people here :-)

Jack, a "cane" is just the feminine form of a "canard" ;-) PomPom

ooo, neat. I had no idea. :) JackLynch 10:08, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Your ideas open up alot of questions PomPom. Is it ok to edit other peoples talk? Are we better off knowing if somebody wants to say icky things? What should we do w people who like to say nasties on occasion, but othertimes are civil and do good work? What if they increasingly become more and more nasty? when and where and how do we draw the line? JackLynch 10:07, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)

It's fairly undecided. See Wikipedia talk:Remove personal attacks. Angela. 13:16, Jan 17, 2004 (UTC)

Whats this?

Is this the "official" mediation/arbitration committee/grouping - or something different? Secretlondon 15:03, Jan 15, 2004 (UTC)

kinda both, I made it, and I'm not on the committe.JackLynch 10:08, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Consent

I don't at all agree, but I heard such an objection from timstarling on IRC, and I reviewed the mediation article at length. It seems to me that consent is in no way required to get the process started, but very well might be to achieve absolote success in mediating. Of course, if mediation fails, other means may become necessary! I would like the complaint process to be a series of steps, rather than a chair in the corner, or a plank to walk ;) JackLynch 21:38, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Here's a professional definition of mediation from www.mediate.com:

Mediation may be thought of as "assisted negotiation."

Negotiation may be thought of as "communications for agreement."

Hence, mediation is "assisted communications for agreement."

Central to mediation is the concept of "informed consent." So long as participants understand the nature of a contemplated mediation process and effectively consent to participate in the described process, virtually any mediation process is possible and appropriate.

Consent is absolutely required. Bmills 09:03, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I agree fully. If one party doesn't agree to mediation then it has to fail by definition. -- sannse 20:53, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Mediation/arbitration

I intended to place myself on the list as an arbitrator, since I'm not on the official Wikipedia:Mediation Committee (yet, I'm trying!). But if that term already has some specific status (where can I learn more about that?) perhaps I should create a seperate title/catagory for myself, and list all the Mediation comittee members here as mediators? Also, I 100% agree w all mediation being done OFF this page, thats how I ment for it to have been set up. I think some mention of that other than "make your complaint in as few words as possible" might be a good idea tho... JackLynch

There's a list of arbitrators at Wikipedia talk:Mediation and Arbitration (proposal). Angela. 22:20, Jan 15, 2004 (UTC)

Hi Jack. A list of current arbitrators is available at Wikipedia:Arbitrators. We're not currently recruiting, but if we decide that we need more members, we'll be sure to let people know. In any case, there are plans to have some new arbitrators elected at the end of this year. Martin 20:09, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

suspicions

I'm just one notch away from asking the developers to determine whether you're the re-incarnation of some hard-banned user like EntmootOfTrolls. But I'm still willing to assume good faith for now. --Uncle Ed 15:45, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Wow, thats not very nice at all. I STRONGLY request that you ask the developers to determine who I am. I'll even make a phone call, or fax some I.D., or whatever. Since you dislike the "wikitherapist" bit, I will remove it. It was placed there only after you removed me from the list of arbitrators, and after the comment above. Jack 04:50, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)

nice, a conflict... -- anon

Sorry about having been so suspicious. If you only knew how much trouble EofT caused; he proposed an anonymous user:Mediator identity, after having been hard-banned for various offenses. And when you simultaneously registered a request for mediation between yourself and another user AND listed yourself as a mediator, it reminded me of the kind of stunts EofT pulled -- hence my suspicion.

Well, it's nice to know you're a different person anyway. (Speaking of identities, check out my new edit page sig). --Unsolved Equation 16:57, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Jack requested I check his identity via IRC. A traceroute confirms he is in Dayton, Ohio. EoT was last seen contributing to MeatballWiki 4 hours ago from Halifax, Nova Scotia. For this and other reasons, I consider it very unlikely they are the same person. -- Tim Starling 05:30, Jan 17, 2004 (UTC)

The problem is I could be some other banned user. I want an end to this. How do I 100% confirm who I am? Maybe if I donate $20 to the wiki, my credit card will verify I am who I say I am? Jack 08:27, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Only if we knew the credit card details of all our banned users. :) Jack, don't worry about it. No one but Ed has suggested you are a banned user, and Tim has already demonstrated you are not EofT who Ed was saying you were, so I think the matter can be considered closed unless someone has some evidence to the contrary. Angela. 08:40, Jan 17, 2004 (UTC)

ach, ok. That sux that I can't prove beyond a doubt who I am. We should all have our IP's on display! How can I be me if somebody thinks I'm not... I want to be as real as possible :) And if anybodys in the Dayton, Ohio area, let me know! I'll talk your ear off about who I actually am over some tea ;) Jack 09:00, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Just upload a photo of yourself to your home page. You could also add an email address, phone address, dead tree mail address, etc. If you've been a member of other communities, link to your front lawn on the community in question (and link back here). It's up to you how much you want to embrace vulnerability to the community, of course. You can also log out, make an edit to your home page, and log in again and "claim" that edit: this comes close to placing your IP address on display, if only temporarilly. Martin 12:50, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Not that you have to do any of that. I don't think there has been any serious accusation of you being a banned user anyway, and those on IRC already know your IP. Angela. 13:16, Jan 17, 2004 (UTC)

removing, replacing, and otherwise rearranging Jacks complaints

I also removed the "problems solved" section, which I don't think will be helpful (looks too much like a score card to me) -- sannse 20:13, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I find what you did highly innappropriate. I previously removed my original request for mediation with RK. I feel that matter to be resolved, as far as I am concerned. On the other hand, I am experiencing ongoing problems with kenneth, and your opinion that that was an isolated incident is clearly based on a severe lack of investigation. Take a look at wikipedia:conflicts between users.

Additionally, I do not aggree to mediation mediated by User:Ed Poor at this time.

I also clearly question your judgement in having independantly, and without either investigation, nor consultation with the parties involved, altered the requests on this page. Jack 02:50, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Did you first climbed the Wikipedia:conflict resolution steps before coming here ?:You may discuss this with Jimbo Wales. You may not agree to be in a mediation session with Ed yourself, but your opinion over mediation involving Ed and other people is hardly relevant here.

that reminds me that we should discuss what would happen were the members of the mediation committee be involved in mediation as disputant. Anthere

Yes, I did. Please don't cut up my text in talk. This is exactly the place to question Ed's skills as a mediator, but I don't mean to spend much time on that, and am not asking to have a mediation between me and ed ;) (or me and RK, anymore). I am asking to have non-ed mediation with kenneth. Me and ed don't appear to have hit it off. Rather than feeling calmed, or listened to, I feel rebuked and mistreated by the entire process of requesting mediation and creating this page. Clearly there are deep faults in this process . Jack 08:51, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way. We are obviously having a misunderstanding and I hope we can resolve that.

I think the first point to explain is that the text you thought was written by me was from Anthere. She did sign her comments, but split them up to make it clearer which of your comment she was replying too (I don't tend to do this, but it's a common format on talk pages). The relevant edit is this one: [1]

You are right that there are deep faults in the mediation process, but that's because we only really started developing the process this week. It will take a little time for our ideas to develop and a standard process to be worked out. This initial stage is likely to be the most difficult and the time when we are least effective. But hopefully we can work out a process that really makes a difference in conflict resolution. I hope you will bear with us and give us a little time to become an effective group.

I'm glad you feel your conflict with RK is resolved. My intention was not to bring that up again but to summarise what I understood to be the current position with that mediation. I didn't want to remove the request without comment (I felt the same about the LordKenneth request - which is why I commented on the removal on this page). I'll ask Ed to update the section with a better summary.

Getting on to the Lord Kenneth request... I understand that the specific incident you requested mediation over ("User:Lord Kenneth said mean stuff on my talk page") was not the whole story. That's why I said above: "If the dispute that caused the comment needs mediation then perhaps both parties can get together make a request." If you and Kenneth can't sort out your differences then you might agree to ask together for a mediator to help out. If you don't feel you can ask Kenneth to join you in mediation then a mediator could ask for you. But what's needed is an agreement from you and Kenneth to give mediation a try.

I understand your unhappiness with my rather bold editing. In future I will make my explanations more detailed. I think that we will have to continue to be quite bold in removing and reformating requests, it really is important that this doesn't become a duplicate of Wikipedia:Conflicts between users. But we obviously need to discuss the best ways of doing this as part of the development of this process.

I hope this rather long message is helpful. Please let me know of any points you feel I didn't cover or any other area we need to discuss. Regards -- sannse 11:33, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)

OK, thats confusing. I'm sorry I misunderstood, I went by the edit summeries, obviously I should have done a more detailed investigation. I think everything needs alot more discussion, and to be honest I am no longer very confident that Wikipedia:Conflict resolution is an effective and appropriate procedure. On the other hand, I think that the idea of several steps (pages) and one leading to the other is a good idea. Alot more work needs done, and while I'd like to be helpful it doesn't appear that there is a concensus that my help is appreciated ;) Jack 02:08, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Help is always appreciated :) and you have given us that by starting this page, which has helped push us into discussions on how this is going to work. I tend to find things are always slow to develop around here because of our community decision making process (true dictatorship always works faster ;). Hopefully we will get the process developed eventually and your confidence in the process will return. Regards -- sannse 16:35, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for your warm and refreshing civility. A little of that goes a long way. I could stand to learn from your even balance and positive demeanor. While I still think radical changes need to be made, I share your confidence that they are in the works (however slowly!). Alls well that ends well! Jack 02:54, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Interaction with arbitration

Jack wrote that "I am simply attempting to fulfil the formalities of the conflict resoloution process so that I can seek binding arbitration". Just to clarify one point: the arbitration committee has yet to decide the extent to which it will interact with the mediation process. We're aware of a range of opinions on the subject, and will be carefully discussing the matter in due course. Martin 20:15, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)~

yeah, I've noticed. Everythings up in the air... :( Lets hope it lands nicely! Jack 21:47, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Request for Status Update

What the heck is the status of my mediation? And, precisely whom is waiting for what? -- Mr-Natural-Health 14:33, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Give the committee a chance. You can't expect eveything yesterday. I believe they are choosing a mediator. theresa knott 14:41, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I was under the impression that you (MNH) had refused mediation with theresa but accepted it on a different matter (which hasn't been defined yet). That's what this meta page says, anyway. Who have you accepted mediation with, and have you expressed any preferences regarding the choice of mediator? Tuf-Kat 18:02, Jan 26, 2004 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, he has refused mediation of his behaviour and wants only to discuss content of alternative medicine. I am happy to participate in this limited mediation of content provided he promises to behave nice to me. So far, he has refused to do that. Fair enough, I am happy to see his favourite pages stay protected until the arbitration committee sorts out its policies. Alternatively if a mediator is prepared to act as a go between so that any changes that I suggest to the page are implemented by the mediator rather than me then fine, as long as I don't have to put up with his insults I am happy. theresa knott 18:48, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I am getting rather tired of the insulting comments made by theresa knott. We are not married, just thought that you might want to know. -- Mr-Natural-Health 04:12, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Check out:

User talk:Cimon ava

10 matter regarding alternative medicine mediation

Seems perfectly clearly to me. Plus, the matter of there being no arbibration means that the orignial mediation might be back on.

-- Mr-Natural-Health 04:09, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I have not check who did that, but I think it is not a good idea that old requests are removed from this page, while they are still under way. Please don't. I did not find reference of that request in the old request pages either. Anthère0 15:12, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, that was me. I was just trying to reduce clutter and get rid of everything past the "requests" stage. Perhaps I was too enthusiastic in my snipping. Tuf-Kat 18:10, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC)

I see hope in your enthousiasm :-) ant

I likewise appreciate you keeping the requests board up to date, and as free from clutter/bickering a spossible. Cheers, Sam Spade 04:18, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Important Clarification

Is the voluntary mediation process supposed to be a way to get people at loggerheads to come to reasonable compromises or is it just part of an illusion of due process under arbitrary rule?

I originally thought the mediation process was to get people to stop fighting and start talking.

Lately, though, I feel this process has been conscripted by certain users to prosecute personal vendettas under the guise of cleaning up the user base.

I appreciate any feedback here, I am wondering if there is even any point of continuing this process of mediation with other users. If it is merely a sham I would like to know so I can just cut my losses here. - Plautus satire 05:27, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The mediation process has nothing to do with prosecuting people. As stated at mediation, "mediation is the activity in which a neutral third party, the mediator, assists two or more parties in order to help them achieve an agreement, with concrete effects, on a matter of common interest". Angela. 22:13, Feb 23, 2004 (UTC)

How does quoting the passages allay my fears that it is not a sham? I appreciate your attempts to calm me down, but note the conspicuous lack of cries that, "Of course it's not a sham it is always just and fair!" - Plautus satire 22:43, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

What's the point in claiming it's not a sham? That's about as effective as saying there is no cabal. Either you think it is or you don't; I doubt I could convince you either way. Angela. 03:59, Feb 24, 2004 (UTC)

I also find it interesting you say it's not "prosecuting people". Where did you get this notion I thought it was? - Plautus satire 22:46, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

From what you said above: "this process... prosecute personal vendettas...". Angela. 03:59, Feb 24, 2004 (UTC)

Prosecution of a vendetta, not prosecution of a person. I have no idea what prosecution of a person means outside of a legal process. Prosecution of a vendetta would not be a prosecution in that context, it would be persecution. I realize it is only a couple of letters difference, but there is a very important distinction to be made between the two. Thanks again for your input. - Plautus satire 04:02, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Sleep Medicine Pearls		Review of Sleep Medicine		Clinical Companion to Sleep Disorders Medicine Second Edition		Principles and Practice of Sleep Medicine
Sleep Medicine		The Promise of Sleep: A Pioneer in Sleep Medicine Explores the Vital Connection Between Health, Happiness, and a Good Night's Sleep		Atlas of Sleep Medicine		Treating Sleep Disorders: Principles and Practice of Behavioral Sleep Medicine
Sleep Medicine