Wikipedia Mediation Cabal | |
---|---|
![]() | |
Article | Columbo |
Status | closed |
Request date | 18:16, 27 February 2012 (UTC) |
Requesting party | Djathinkimacowboy |
Parties involved | Djathinkimacowboy, Rangoon11 |
Mediator(s) | Lord Roem |
The article Columbo is overloaded and excessively long. Some of us had agreed to move a couple of sections to do strictly with television data to List of Columbo episodes. There is one editor who will not allow this change to be made.
My fear is my zealous aims toward this article may have chased away everyone except Rangoon11. I'd like some help and consensus-building; I only want to see this improved as it ought to be.
![]() | Since there is no qualification procedure to become a MedCab mediator and since any Wikipedia editor can volunteer in any mediation case to be a mediator, each participant in a dispute should carefully examine the background and experience of any editor who volunteers to mediate a case and should feel free to reject any mediator who they believe is not suitable. Rejection by one or more participants of a mediator or rejection of participation in the mediation for any other reason does not mean that the mediation cannot move forward with that mediator or with the remaining participants, but it may substantially lessen the possibility that consensus to settle the dispute will be achieved. (Mediation cannot, by policy, provide a binding result but can only help the parties reach consensus.) |
This may reflect negatively on me, but I want to indicate this and state that I disagree with Salvio about withdrawing here. He is involved to the extent that he can assist initially. In general, I do agree that Sal did not have further involvement in the content disputes themselves, though he did make suggestions.-- Djathink imacowboy 20:50, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure MikeWazowski has made it clear exactly what his intentions were, but now has been officially chased from here. That also speaks volumes. On another front, he is right about a recent edit he made to Columbo, and I was wrong about that. In this instance, I assumed bad faith from Mike. As you can see, it is still impossible for me to communicate with someone like Mike since everything is a "personal attack". As far as I am concerned, this particular little dust-up is at an end and we can go on with mediation. LR, it is very noble and appropriate what you did.-- Djathink imacowboy 20:25, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Comment My time's been really pushed recently, which is why I haven't been involved in the discussions on the article talk page, and don't really have a handle on what happened around that. I'll try and make time tonight to catch up and get involved. Ged UK 12:56, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Though I think the two editors (I and Rangoon11) successfully worked together on some issues, I am unhappy about the mediation's direction and wanted to state here also that some time ago I withdrew from the mediation. I see no useful purpose in it now, and furthermore am very displeased that Lord Roem just dropped it completely. Note the last time LR posted here - and no effort to intervene when we had disruption here either.— Djathink imacowboy 17:06, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia Mediation Cabal | |
---|---|
![]() | |
Article | Columbo |
Status | closed |
Request date | 18:16, 27 February 2012 (UTC) |
Requesting party | Djathinkimacowboy |
Parties involved | Djathinkimacowboy, Rangoon11 |
Mediator(s) | Lord Roem |
The article Columbo is overloaded and excessively long. Some of us had agreed to move a couple of sections to do strictly with television data to List of Columbo episodes. There is one editor who will not allow this change to be made.
My fear is my zealous aims toward this article may have chased away everyone except Rangoon11. I'd like some help and consensus-building; I only want to see this improved as it ought to be.
![]() | Since there is no qualification procedure to become a MedCab mediator and since any Wikipedia editor can volunteer in any mediation case to be a mediator, each participant in a dispute should carefully examine the background and experience of any editor who volunteers to mediate a case and should feel free to reject any mediator who they believe is not suitable. Rejection by one or more participants of a mediator or rejection of participation in the mediation for any other reason does not mean that the mediation cannot move forward with that mediator or with the remaining participants, but it may substantially lessen the possibility that consensus to settle the dispute will be achieved. (Mediation cannot, by policy, provide a binding result but can only help the parties reach consensus.) |
This may reflect negatively on me, but I want to indicate this and state that I disagree with Salvio about withdrawing here. He is involved to the extent that he can assist initially. In general, I do agree that Sal did not have further involvement in the content disputes themselves, though he did make suggestions.-- Djathink imacowboy 20:50, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure MikeWazowski has made it clear exactly what his intentions were, but now has been officially chased from here. That also speaks volumes. On another front, he is right about a recent edit he made to Columbo, and I was wrong about that. In this instance, I assumed bad faith from Mike. As you can see, it is still impossible for me to communicate with someone like Mike since everything is a "personal attack". As far as I am concerned, this particular little dust-up is at an end and we can go on with mediation. LR, it is very noble and appropriate what you did.-- Djathink imacowboy 20:25, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Comment My time's been really pushed recently, which is why I haven't been involved in the discussions on the article talk page, and don't really have a handle on what happened around that. I'll try and make time tonight to catch up and get involved. Ged UK 12:56, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Though I think the two editors (I and Rangoon11) successfully worked together on some issues, I am unhappy about the mediation's direction and wanted to state here also that some time ago I withdrew from the mediation. I see no useful purpose in it now, and furthermore am very displeased that Lord Roem just dropped it completely. Note the last time LR posted here - and no effort to intervene when we had disruption here either.— Djathink imacowboy 17:06, 27 March 2012 (UTC)