→Three notifications?: Thanks |
reply |
||
Line 34: | Line 34: | ||
*:*Ironically you would know how widely held those criticisms were if the MFD hadn't been speedily closed :) Note that I'm not the one holding those criticisms either, I'm just playing devil's advocate here. But perhaps replace the chair with a sofa anyway :) [[User_talk:Radiant!|<b><font color="#0000DD">><font color="#0066FF">R<font color="#0099FF">a<font color="#00CCFF">d<font color="#00EEFF">i</font>a</font>n</font>t</font><</font></b>]] 14:47, 12 September 2007 (UTC) |
*:*Ironically you would know how widely held those criticisms were if the MFD hadn't been speedily closed :) Note that I'm not the one holding those criticisms either, I'm just playing devil's advocate here. But perhaps replace the chair with a sofa anyway :) [[User_talk:Radiant!|<b><font color="#0000DD">><font color="#0066FF">R<font color="#0099FF">a<font color="#00CCFF">d<font color="#00EEFF">i</font>a</font>n</font>t</font><</font></b>]] 14:47, 12 September 2007 (UTC) |
||
*::*I'm kinda hoping people don't need an MfD to express their concerns - that's kinda what this talkpage is for and as far as I know we don't bite! Still a sofa could work - better than a doormat anyway... <span style="font-family: Verdana">[[User:WJBscribe|'''WjB''']][[User talk:WJBscribe|scribe]]</span> 15:06, 12 September 2007 (UTC) |
*::*I'm kinda hoping people don't need an MfD to express their concerns - that's kinda what this talkpage is for and as far as I know we don't bite! Still a sofa could work - better than a doormat anyway... <span style="font-family: Verdana">[[User:WJBscribe|'''WjB''']][[User talk:WJBscribe|scribe]]</span> 15:06, 12 September 2007 (UTC) |
||
*:::My only issue with the committee is the way users are selected. A committee who elects the other committee members, but deals with the community is not the way to go. I think it would work a lot better if the committee's input was weighted more (with nominations), but the two oppose rule was struck down. You are trying to determine consensus if a user will make a good MedCom member, not the thoughts of two members who oppose. Often times two users will oppose a RFA, but the rest of the community wants that user to be an admin. Thoughts? '''<font color="steelblue">H<sub>[[user_talk:CO|<font color="steelblue">2</font>]]</sub>O</font>''' 23:44, 16 September 2007 (UTC) |
|||
== Three notifications? == |
== Three notifications? == |
Revision as of 23:44, 16 September 2007
Archives |
---|
Reform?
I spotted this debate where some editors suggest the MedCom is in need of reform. This may be worth discussing, and this talk page appears to be the most appropriate spot. >Radiant< 12:30, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- I think the major problem with the people that were commenting was that they have no experience with MEDOCM or how it works and they fail to understand the process involved. There is nothing wrong with medcom and it does some great work, there's no point in fixing something that isn't broken. Ryan Postlethwaite 12:34, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Although MedCom is slightly bureaucratic, it is a net positive and I don't think it needs much reform. Andre (talk) 15:08, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- It really needs no reform, IMHO. MedCom is trundling away as it always has - people seem to randomly decide that they don't like a particular group, for one reason or another (eg not being admitted, or falling foul of it), and take the move of MfD or whatever. This, and the Wikipedia community's complete opposition to bureaucracy or (for want of a better term) separation of users through any voting process (other than, of course, RfA, which is generally a given for any sock that has been around 4 months) is frankly getting too much now, and is definitely causing my participation here to wane. My personal feelings are that everyone who complains about bureaucracy or "power groups" on Wikipedia needs to open their eyes and see why they were necessary to start with, and remain necessary. I think I need a wikibreak (again!). Martinp23 16:26, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
I think it would be helpful if those who have concerns about what we do and how raise them here so a discussion can be held. We are very willing to respond to questions and enter into discussion. Some of the comments in the MfD are rather of the sort of "this sounds odd and isn't how other processes are run". This is true, but I think people need to gain a good understanding of what we are doing in order to determine if change is needed and, if so, to make positive suggestions for such change. If reform is needed, a case needs to be made for it and it is better for decisions to be fully discussed here than for the Committee to try and guess what changes the Community would like. So by all means, raise concerns on this talkpage - we will explain why we do things the way we do and perhaps with everyone talking things over better arrangements can be come to. We are particularly interested to here if there are examples of circumstances when either (a) the wrong people have been appointed (or not appointed) to the Committee or (b) of areas where the stucture of MedCom has meant that a dispute has been dealt with in a sub-optimal manner. WjBscribe 16:27, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
The few issues I saw in the MFD seemed to be related to the bureaucracy. This was, for the most part, inherent since the beginning of MedCom, partially because a mediator needs a high level of trust - a mediator needs to be able to hold the confidence of all parties involved, no matter what the consequences of doing so may be. The Chair position isn't really bureaucratic at all - we elect a member from within ourselves to handle the dirty work, assign cases, etc. I'm open to change, but there wasn't any discussion at the MFD about what to change. I hope some discussion will occur here. Ral315 » 22:27, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Reading over the MFD (which I don't really have an opinion upon) I see that the two main objections are (1) the chairperson, and (2) the approval process. I'd suggest that the first objection can be addressed simply by renaming "chair" to something like "coordinator", because apparently some people are missing the point that the chair isn't official. With respect to the approval process, it appears that some people want community to have a say in it, but I doubt that setting up a RFA-like process would really help. >Radiant< 08:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, I agree those criticisms were made. But how widely held are they? No one has come here to asks us why we do things the way we do or explain why this is of concern to them. I think change based of the opinions of a few people. The decision to have a chair was made in 2004 when Jimbo set up the Committee - with input from very respected members of the community such as Angela and Anthere. To reverse that now based on a few comemnts in an MfD seems a lasty hasty and reactionary. There are reasons why we have a chair and not a coordinator and why MedCom requires someone to play to former role and not just the latter. Simpy renaming the post seems a cosmetic step and misdescription is unhelpful. The chair is official in the sense that they are appointed by the committee to represent them and make various decisions, it is however not a position of power over the rest (i.e. it is not a "president" or "director"). As to the approval process, again specific criticisms would be helpful - the community often comments extensively on nominations and are in agreement with the Members of the Committee - where has our approval process produced the wrong result? I am can think of some changes that could work - for example having consensus to appoint determined my someone who is both a Committee Member and a bureaucrat to ensure the interest of both groups are given due weight - but that kinda feels more bureaucratic rather than less. We are open to discussing change and to making changes based on community consensus - but I think it would be a little fickle of us to make changes based on the concerns of a small number of Wikipedians in the wrong forum without understand either (a) their basis or (b) how widespread they are. WjBscribe 10:28, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- Ironically you would know how widely held those criticisms were if the MFD hadn't been speedily closed :) Note that I'm not the one holding those criticisms either, I'm just playing devil's advocate here. But perhaps replace the chair with a sofa anyway :) >Radiant< 14:47, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- I'm kinda hoping people don't need an MfD to express their concerns - that's kinda what this talkpage is for and as far as I know we don't bite! Still a sofa could work - better than a doormat anyway... WjBscribe 15:06, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- My only issue with the committee is the way users are selected. A committee who elects the other committee members, but deals with the community is not the way to go. I think it would work a lot better if the committee's input was weighted more (with nominations), but the two oppose rule was struck down. You are trying to determine consensus if a user will make a good MedCom member, not the thoughts of two members who oppose. Often times two users will oppose a RFA, but the rest of the community wants that user to be an admin. Thoughts? H2O 23:44, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, I agree those criticisms were made. But how widely held are they? No one has come here to asks us why we do things the way we do or explain why this is of concern to them. I think change based of the opinions of a few people. The decision to have a chair was made in 2004 when Jimbo set up the Committee - with input from very respected members of the community such as Angela and Anthere. To reverse that now based on a few comemnts in an MfD seems a lasty hasty and reactionary. There are reasons why we have a chair and not a coordinator and why MedCom requires someone to play to former role and not just the latter. Simpy renaming the post seems a cosmetic step and misdescription is unhelpful. The chair is official in the sense that they are appointed by the committee to represent them and make various decisions, it is however not a position of power over the rest (i.e. it is not a "president" or "director"). As to the approval process, again specific criticisms would be helpful - the community often comments extensively on nominations and are in agreement with the Members of the Committee - where has our approval process produced the wrong result? I am can think of some changes that could work - for example having consensus to appoint determined my someone who is both a Committee Member and a bureaucrat to ensure the interest of both groups are given due weight - but that kinda feels more bureaucratic rather than less. We are open to discussing change and to making changes based on community consensus - but I think it would be a little fickle of us to make changes based on the concerns of a small number of Wikipedians in the wrong forum without understand either (a) their basis or (b) how widespread they are. WjBscribe 10:28, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Three notifications?
Hello. I'm wondering whether it is normal for MediationBot to provide three notifications of a rejected case over the course of half a day. That seems excessive to me, and I wonder whether the bot is malfunctioning or whether I need to do something to stop the notifications. Thanks. --Tkynerd 17:50, 13 September 2007 (UTC)