This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archives |
---|
Are you folks positivists? And why do you insist on trance-banced hollows in lieu of more concerted tallying? Thanks. GroverPennyshaft ( talk) 21:20, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I have requested mediation for Western New York. Apparently while most people seem to be agreement that Rochester and a good chunk of its metro area is considered part of Western New York, one editor has decided that it's not and will continually change the page to fit his perception. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.3.8.253 ( talk) 15:52, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I have always believed that people holding positions of trust should be open for recall. For that reason, my first action as an administrator was to join AOR. Being a cabal, Mediation Cabal does not have a procedure like AOR, but I would say the equivalent would be if someone in good standing, who has done good work on Mediation Cabal asks a coordinator to stand down. That just happened in my case. I am therefore stepping down from Mediation Cabal coordination. My thanks and best wishes go to all the selfless volunteers here. — Sebastian 01:05, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
I have just requested mediation for Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I would also like to ask, is there any template to utilize for notifying other parties? thanks. -- Steve, Sm8900 ( talk) 14:58, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi. i have a new Medcab case open for Palestinian people. however, it is not showing up under new cases. Any idea why? thanks. -- Steve, Sm8900 ( talk) 16:09, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-07-19 Domineering Editor on Asperger Syndrome — Viriditas | Talk 20:36, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi, a month ago (4 Decemeber) I requested mediation for an article which I have edited ( Bosnian Mujahideen). sdirrim agreed to take on the the case. However, I have not heard anything from him since 13 December despite repeated notices on his talk page. Is there perhaps another mediator who could step in? I really would like to follow through with the mediation as I believe it would be helpful but feel that it is taking too long. Osli73 ( talk) 09:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't suppose anyone's whipped up a userbox for Cabal members? atakdoug ( talk) 00:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
This user was a volunteer mediator in the Mediation Cabal before it was closed. |
Doesn't the userbox give the game away a bit? What happens if you want to go undercover? :-P -- Kim Bruning ( talk) 12:34, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
There is no Mediation Cabal and this user isn't in it. |
-- Doug.( talk • contribs) 17:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
For convenience, the call for this is: {{ User:Doug/User medcab}}, in case anyone is interested.-- Doug.( talk • contribs) 22:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I see archives through part of 2006 and then . . . it just stops. Did we stop archiving when we started using a category? Seems like we should explain that somewhere.-- Doug.( talk • contribs) 20:25, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
In the past i was informed that I am not to attempt to mediate. Is there anything else I can do or can this be lifted?
Geoff Plourde ( talk) 06:26, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Geoff Plourde ( talk) 19:22, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
While I understand completely if you do not want me mediating, is there anything else I can do to help say on the admin end? Geoff Plourde ( talk) 07:23, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I hate to question the coordinator when I'm so new to this WP:DR venue myself, but this thread seems to confuse the informality and unofficial nature of MedCab (and to an outsider would seem to prove that there is in fact a cabal, all kidding aside). I have concerns about an editor being told he or she is not welcome to mediate or can't mediate at MedCab. If the editor has neglected cases in the past, the editor should be encouraged to co-mediate cases; if the editor has mishandled cases in the past, the editor should be encouraged to co-mediate with or at least shadow an experienced mediator. Otherwise, unless there's an ArbCom decision against this user, I don't see how we can justify this position. -- Doug.( talk • contribs) 05:29, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, checking Geoff's user page... that's interesting. Well, I'll still leave it to Doug and Addhoc what they want to do. :-) -- Kim Bruning ( talk) 08:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Is this the right place to bring such a complaint? I would like the behaviour to stop and am very willing to negotiate.-- scuro ( talk) 06:19, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Could you please give some examples? Seddon69 ( talk) 20:04, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
It's been suggested that I might be able to help in some disputes. Full disclosure does require my mentioning that I do have a mediation request (Code Pink) in the process.
Why do I think I might be qualified? Well, I have two cats, but, for the house as a whole, there are 15 cats (3 being new kittens), 5 dogs, and a rescued squirrel. At the very least, twice a day, when it is time to give out the Wet Disgusting Cat Food, I indeed herd cats.
More seriously, in various past events where I did mediate, I found one of the first priorities was finding anything, no matter how small, about which the parties agreed. That point of agreement might be, in Wikipedia terms, a "coatrack", but often it's more of an oil spot that spreads out over troubled waters, calming larger areas. (this is figurative; I don't think oil spills are terribly good for most environments).
I do have knowledge in an assortment of areas; please look at my userpage for some relevant areas.
Mediation sometimes is frustrating, and I accept that that what may be the most achievable thing is to leave the parties somewhat unhappy, but aware that all are equally unhappy with the solution and agree no one was given an advantage. It's far more satisfying, of course, when the parties can find a way to work together in a constructive way.
Howard C. Berkowitz ( talk) 22:19, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I notice that in a lot of cases (I'll give examples if anyone needs them - but they seem too common to bother referencing to me) the parties begin arguing on the MedCab page before a mediator ever arrives to open the case. Often the argument is more about "how dumb this is that you've taken this issue to this level you bozo" or worse, rather than even being a discussion of the merits. Since we often have a backlog, right now for example, are there any ideas on how to avoid this? My only thoughts would be to change the process so that there is no link from the article talk page to here until a mediator opens the case, but that would probably require more work for mediators. An alternative might be to change the template so that it has an area for the parties to accept mediation, as some mediators use regularly, but eliminate the discussion section or comment it out, leaving it to the mediator to start it up.
I would note too that the Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Suggestions_for_mediators page suggests starting out on the article's talk page without declaring oneself as a mediator. I've tried this before, but it's really difficult because usually everybody knows that the issue is with MedCab and they're all waiting for a mediator. It also creates the problem that no other mediators know you're involved because if you open the case and put your name on it you certainly can't play the incognito game. Sure that's not a big deal but with a backlog most mediators probably aren't really looking to double up unless it's to mentor a new mediator.
Thoughts?-- Doug.( talk • contribs) 19:10, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Playing devil's advocate: I don't necessarily think that the arguing on the case pages is all bad. I understand the concern about it, but it's just a continuation of existing disputes and can be useful to the volunteer taking the case. It certainly provides a snapshot of the users involved and their interactions with each other. It could also be contended that it's better for the bickering to occur on a MedCab case page, rather than further cluttering the article talk page. The case pages can always be refactored and/or archived to clear away the dross. Just some thoughts from the other side of the coin. Cheers! Vassyana ( talk) 12:03, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
By the by, if you're going to take the discreet route, don't be shy about dropping myself and/or Addhoc (or really any experienced MedCabber) an email asking us to adopt the case or close it without prejudice to reopening. Either way, we could mark the case "on hold", based on the fact that someone is already attempting to resolve the issue. The case page editing becomes a maintenance action by a coordinator or experienced volunteer. Thoughts? Vassyana ( talk) 05:26, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, the ArbCom has decided not to decide (which is what many of us expected) and put the article on probation Waterboarding. The discussion on the talk page continues, into the I don't know which repetition of the same arguments, around and around, getting hotter and hotter. Is it possible that someone from this non-existent Cabal could lend us a hand? If so, help, please, (here, there, my talk page, or email me.) Thanks, htom (OtterSmith) htom ( talk) 05:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Not that familiar with this process, but thought I'd give it a try before going for administrative intervention on the issue with the Sassanid Empire infobox, which has a map that is in dispute. It appears to be taking quite a while to get someone to look at it, though. Is there a reason for that? Could something be done to improve the case log so that it is easier to take on? Thanks. Larry Dunn ( talk) 20:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
(cur) (last) 23:26, 29 February 2008 Tone (Talk | contribs) m (Protected Janez Drnovšek: constant reverting by an anonymous user despite warnings [edit=autoconfirmed:move=autoconfirmed] (expires 23:26, 29 March 2008 (UTC))
Please unblock me. I am not anonymous, left my name in the history, and responded to the talk page. As a personal friend and interviewer of Dr. Janez Drnovsek it was his wish to have his writings included in wikipedia after he passed. They are representative of the reasons for his'change in lifestyle' and I give attribution. The above user blocks them, as well as Dr. Drnovsek's final blog (despite my request for creating a separate quote section), thus denying many people (55,000 signed the book of condolence on the internet) a fuller and relevant picture of the President. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.232.26 ( talk • contribs)
I've noticed a tendency for editors to get uncivil or engage in personal attacks when they're filing the request, immediately poisoning the well for other editors in the dispute. I think Doug was mentioning problems like this above. Do you think it is right for a mediator to see a new or open case to rewrite the request? Are there other options? I have told some requesters to rewrite the request, but they might be away, or might disagree.
It's interesting, because writing these requests is proof of needing mediation, while at the same time looking like mediation is certainly not going to work to many parties. Xavexgoem ( talk) 05:22, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Currently I am in a reversion ping-pong about the correct name to use in an article on National Bank of Greece. I don't think this is situation that is amenable to mediation because it reflects an ongoing dispute between Greece and the Republic of Macedonia. So, what should we do? Acad Ronin ( talk) 21:43, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi all - hope you can help with this. I've been approached as an admin by User:Peter Shearan over problems with an editor, User: Kentem. Kentem makes controversial edits to articles about places in southeast England, including frequent splits of articlesinto a large number of subarticles. Normally, this would be a simple mediation matter, but of Kentem's 1500+ edits, only 60 have been to talk pages, and s/he never once seems to have responded to someone else's comment (all those 60 edits are new sections/new comments) - as such, I can' work out how or where to list concerns in the disputes process pages. Basically, we've got an editor working against the consensus of other editors, who refuses to discuss matters at all. Some indication of the scope of the problem can be seen from User_talk:Kentem, which is full of AFD/prod notices and queries as to edits - none of which has been answered. Technically, s/he's not doing anything which warrants a block, but it's becoming quite disruptive. Any suggestions/help would be appreciated! Grutness... wha? 23:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Israeli-Palestinian conflict has been edit-protected. I'm not filing a fiormal medcab request, but it wouldn't hurt to have someone keep an eye there, and perhaps add a neutral viewpoint. thanks. -- Steve, Sm8900 ( talk) 15:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
After discussion with many people off wiki about this subject i felt it would be a good idea to see if there is widespread consensus for this to happen. These two methods of dispute resolution are similar but differ mainly in that 3O deals with disputes between two editors and MEBCAB deals with multiple editors. I felt that the referral between these two groups should be streamlined to allow quicker referral from one to the other. Although this does exist in the form or a suggestion on the WP:3O page and there is no such suggestion on the MEDCAB page. What i am proposing is a direct referral process, so that what multi party disputes posted at WP:3O can be quickly and efficiently be passed on to WP:MEDCAB and vice versa with regards to 2 party disputes. Given that most content disputes 99.99% of the time have to go through MEDCAB before going on to MEDCOM it seems a sensible idea. This could happen by the referral by the cabalists and 3O contributers themselves with a message on the parties concerned informing them of the referral. Seddon69 ( talk) 18:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC) message also posted at 3O and dispute resolution
I went ahead and mentioned 3O and RfC in Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/howto. At the same time, I've also "loosened up" the language and instructions to some degree. We are after all informal and generally encourage tongues to go in cheeks on occasion. :) Vassyana ( talk) 12:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Though, if a medcab mediator wants to take a 2 person case, they shouldn't not be able to. ;-) -- Kim Bruning ( talk) 01:07, 16 March 2008 (UTC) talk about double negatives :-p
Hi, i am having a such big trouble and i am being victim of harrassment, false accusations, personal attacks and treats to be banned. I have came back from a brief break and since AMA is gone i dont know who may be my advocate. I really need help. I am sorry my english is not fairly good, but i would be pleased to give full details on my discussion page. =( -- HappyApple ( talk) 08:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
AMA was replaced. :-) Sounds like a job for editor assistance? -- Kim Bruning ( talk) 10:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't look like you were blocked for anything here.
This edit seems like it may be the cause of the problems, as you are approaching Dodo a bit aggressively. Is there any sort of group similar to the arbitration committee on the Spanish wikipedia?
Cowman109
Talk 20:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
But can the Comité de resolución de conflictos help? Is it essentially the Arbitration Committee here? I would hope there is some sort of higher power that serves as a check on the administrators to make sure nothing bad happens..
Es el Comité de resolución y el arbitration committee en el wikipedia inglés la misma cosa? No entiendo porque no puedes pedir a ellos que te ayuden..? Me parece que lo mejor que puedes hacer es esperar por los dias y ir a ellos, a menos que haya algo que no puedo entender? En la wikipedia inglés el arbitration committee tiene más poder que los admins y tiene otro luego en el jerarquía si quieres decirlo en esta manera.. basicamente ellos no son en el mismo 'lado' de los admins, entonces no deberían... side(?) con ellos. Cowman109 Talk 21:56, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
For the record, last night (around the time of my last comments) I left a note on Dodo's es talk page. dihydrogen monoxide ( H2O) 22:05, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, that's on spanish though. We *could* look there, maaayyyybe, but first up, Are there any issues on en? -- Kim Bruning ( talk) 03:32, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Part of the paper trail: Got this page, + translation assistance with the help of Mushii_W on #wikipedia-es
es:Usuario:Gaeddal/bloqueo_de_CleverChemist (block of CleverChemist (== HappyApple?) )
The diff from Gaeddal is about the post in question, at the Wikimeeting (?).
I guess HappyApple is sort of forum shopping here. ^^;;;
-- Kim Bruning ( talk) 02:42, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
HappyApple has requested the case be closed here -- Kim Bruning ( talk) 04:02, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Dodo has responded to some allegations re. HappyApple here. I believe him. dihydrogen monoxide ( H2O) 06:16, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
User of the en:wiki should know that neither user HappyApple nor Messhermit are free to write here. Both has been accused and blocked in the Spanish:wikipedia for their words here (Ecemamml is one of the punishers who explicitly reproached that). As they should know that user SadPuppy has been created just to 'answer' against HappyApple [15]. May I suggest an IP check as a possible puppet user? The name SadPuppet may mean something and this allows him/her very aggressive expressions against HappyApple with nothing to lose. It's unfair.
HappyApple has even been accused of the exit of Dodo from the es:wiki (unfortunately without any proof) What kind of accusation is that?
If the words of an es:wiki users who also is an en:wikipedian on es:wiki users can be used to block him in the es:wiki, the logical conclusion is that the words of an en:wikipedian in the es:wikipedia against an en:wikipedian (who also is es:wikipedian) can be sanctioned. Otherwise, it's not fair.
User dihydrogen monoxide, what a pity you don't read Spanish. But it's unwise to believe only one side if you can't known the proofs. It's a kind of ad hominem: I know this person ergo he is right, I don't know that person ergo he is wrong. There is many proofs on what Messhermit, before being "visited" in the es:wiki, tried to write on Dodo's bad reputation. I have a very poor opinion on Dodo as administrator of the es:wiki, as I know many of his actions, but of course my opinion doesn't mind here. Independent references? Read on the es:wiki an example. An authomatic translator should be able to allow you to get an impression.
I think that if someone request mediation, he (or she) can be right or can be wrong, but obviously he should be free to expose his case without interferences from Dodo's friends, Spanish administrators [16] or puppets.
When someone informs of a problem, it's because he thinks there is a problem (maybe right, may be wrong). If the fact of telling that he thinks that other person is unfair with him is to be considered a defamation beforehand and being object of reprisals by the friends of the other side, there could be never a request for mediation.
Kim Bruning, you should check whether Sadpuppy is a puppet user and whether what has happened here is O.K. IMHO it is too irregular. -- Dilvish 10 words ( talk) 18:49, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Hello, some controversy arose between my self and another editor over an edit on the Coral Smith article. Actually, the dispute was a day ago. I found the user’s behavior to be particularly incivil so I chose to put the issue on hold for the time. It ended with me having to withdraw from the situation because I knew it was a no-win one. I withdrew by giving the editor a friendly comment on his user page just to let him know that this is nothing personal, but merely an attempt at improving the article, he thanked me, and that's where things left off at.
Basically the editing dispute is over whether The Real World/Road Rules Challenge spinned off from both The Real World and Road Rules and not just The Real World. His position is that it is only a spin off of The Real World because that show came out before Road Rules and started it all. My position is that Real World/Road Rules Challenge spinned off from The Real World, as well as Road Rules because: 1.) It really doesn't make a difference because Road Rules came out long before The Real World/Road Rules Challenge too. It only has to come before The Challenge series, not The Real World 2.) The name of the show also has the name Road Rules in it and contestants from Road Rules so I thought that would make for a clear indicator 3.) The show actually has more elements of Road Rules than The Real World as the show is surrounded around making use of challenges and has a lot in common with Road Rules 4.) Our own Wikipedia page on The Real World/Road Rules Challenge has it as a spin off of both shows (in the first paragraph) and has had it that way for a great deal of time (perhaps even years now) without any objection from anyone as shown here: [17] 5.) I even went so far as to provide a source to which I showed the user, but he reverted my edit anyway without communicating why in his edit summmary except for writing "Revert" as shown here [18]. Btw, this was my source [19]
I'd also like to note that he’s tried getting rid of this particular edit another time, but for a different reason. He actually didn't continue to use that same reason as it was a faulty accusation against me, as shown here [20]: It basically states that I had added something into the article that I never did, yet he tells me to read clearly. When I reverted that and corrected him about it (very civily) here [21], he comes back and incivily came up with the reason we're now disputing about, through this edit here [22]. Though he says, "Stop reverting it, and stop edit warring with me" while reverting back the edit, I’d like to note that I had only reverted it one time as opposed to the two times he had reverted it at that point.
Justifying my self and finding a source for my work hasn't seemed to work so I am hoping someone outside of the dispute could help. Thank you! BicMacDad18 ( talk) 20:07, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for responding Nightscream! I do apologize if you feel that this is a show of caprice, but I thought you were a little cooled off and more willing to have rational conversation with me about the issue now that it's a day later. In my opinion, you seemed uncivil the other day and unwilling to reason. You say this is trivial yet you've engaged in edit warring over the matter which shows conflicting feelings.
We can both sit here and come up with a million complaints about each other, but I am sure an outside party does not have the time nor the patience to deal with every last one of them. I now ask that an outside party just focus on the edit in conflict which is whether or not The Real World/Road Rules Challenge is spinned off from both shows (Real World and Road Rules) or just the Real World, which (again) I have provided a source for and Nightscream has not. BicMacDad18 ( talk) 22:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Nightscream, please remember that an agreement can only be reached when everyone cooperates calmly and politely as noted in The Wikipedia: Mediation Cabal article. Refering to any good faith edit as "bad edits" isn't cooperating politely. We're here to come to a resolution, not to insult each other's edits or become hostile with one another. Thank you! BicMacDad18 ( talk) 02:52, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
ADMIN NOW EDIT WARRING WITH OTHER USERS AS WELL IN A VERY SIMILAR SITUATION
I'd like to note that this admin is currently engaged in a very similar heated situation on The Real World article, edit warring, only against what looks to be several editors, as shown here [23]. The dispute is over a "date" with Nightscream protecting the page on the date he wants in the article, as shown here [24]. Given that it seems there are several editors in disagreement with Nightscream, he shouldn't be protecting the page and calling all of them disruptive, but initiating a discussion on the article talk page (which has not be done), inserting a [citation needed] link, or coming here to get the other edit war problem he's having resolved. BicMacDad18 ( talk) 17:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Gwandoya's comment has nothing to do with the debate over the edit in conflict and the topic of this discussion which is Coral Smith article. It serves no purpose here. I have tried to delete the above remark with a very clear edit summary reasoning of why, but it doesn't seem as if I am going to get anywhere with the user as she's beginning to edit war about it here [26] and here [27]. My issues with her sprouted here [28] when she reverted material I had added into the Coral Smith article without explaining why in her edit summary. When I reverted it back here (with my reason why): [29] and gave her this kind note on her talk page: [30], this is how she responded [31]. She's stated that her response of "I don't have to answer to that" was a mistake. However, the very fact that she says she is above edit warring here [32] after beginning to engage in it on this page causes me to question the honesty of her comments. Again, however, because this is all irrelevant to the topic at hand and I don't want the point of this discussion to shift, I will refrain from responding to her on these issues any further than this comment. BicMacDad18 ( talk) 23:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Anyone have any thoughts on this Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-09-11 Falkland Islands/Mediation/Draft-Alex-1? There are two pages nominated, both subpages of the same mediation. Looks like Eagle 101 was the mediator.-- Doug.( talk • contribs) 22:59, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I've recently become acquainted with some people at the University of Washington who have been researching our little encyclopedia project, from a variety of angles. I've been put in touch with Travis Kriplean ( User:Leafman), whose work deals with conflict resolution, and how we build consensus on controversial topics. I expect we'll be meeting face-to-face soon, and I'm very interested to see what kind of definite statements we can make about dispute resolution methods. User:Kim Bruning asked me to post here, as this might be relevant to mediators' interests. I'll let you know as developments progress. - GTBacchus( talk) 02:13, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi everyone, I'm glad to hear that there's interest in my research! I'm looking forward to talking with Tony and everyone in the future. The anecdotes that Howard posts above are intriguing and I'd love to be involved in a systemic effort to typify situations where different approaches yield better results with respect to dispute resolution (and see if there is the possibility for tools that may help mediators like yourselves more readily identify those situations). Leafman ( talk) 01:48, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, there's an old cases list, and then there's the current ongoing cases here. That's a start. Then there's third opinion which might also keep an archive. Then there's Editor Assistence, Requests for comment... oh, well that's a start that will keep you busy for a while. -- Kim Bruning ( talk) 05:37, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Hello, I am need of assitance here in regards to this article. I have been in discussion with multiple admins on how to resolve the past issues in regards to this article. I was working with the admins who, after all the changes they felt were necessary, allowed the article to be recreated. However as soon as it was recreated another couple of admins almost immediately deleted the article citing reasons that clearly were opinionated and obvious that no research into the article was made before deletion. Further more, non of the admins in question even bothered to contact me first before deleting the article. I am finding this type of behavior unreasonable, and frankly dissrespectful not only to myself, but to the other admins that allowed this artle to be published. What can be done to rectify this problem?
Thank you. Succisa75 ( talk) 18:34, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I've changed my user name from 'Addhoc' to 'PhilKnight', which surprisingly enough is my real name. PhilKnight ( talk) 01:44, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
You can place a cabal-lovin' "bumper sticker" on your user page, if you'd like. See an example of its use on User:Vassyana. Image:I Heart the Cabal.png courtesy of Slowking Man's contribution to the public domain. Cheers! Vassyana ( talk) 13:36, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Wikistuffs: <center> {{Click |image = I Heart the Cabal.png |link = WP:MEDCAB }} </center>
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archives |
---|
Are you folks positivists? And why do you insist on trance-banced hollows in lieu of more concerted tallying? Thanks. GroverPennyshaft ( talk) 21:20, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I have requested mediation for Western New York. Apparently while most people seem to be agreement that Rochester and a good chunk of its metro area is considered part of Western New York, one editor has decided that it's not and will continually change the page to fit his perception. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.3.8.253 ( talk) 15:52, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I have always believed that people holding positions of trust should be open for recall. For that reason, my first action as an administrator was to join AOR. Being a cabal, Mediation Cabal does not have a procedure like AOR, but I would say the equivalent would be if someone in good standing, who has done good work on Mediation Cabal asks a coordinator to stand down. That just happened in my case. I am therefore stepping down from Mediation Cabal coordination. My thanks and best wishes go to all the selfless volunteers here. — Sebastian 01:05, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
I have just requested mediation for Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I would also like to ask, is there any template to utilize for notifying other parties? thanks. -- Steve, Sm8900 ( talk) 14:58, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi. i have a new Medcab case open for Palestinian people. however, it is not showing up under new cases. Any idea why? thanks. -- Steve, Sm8900 ( talk) 16:09, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-07-19 Domineering Editor on Asperger Syndrome — Viriditas | Talk 20:36, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi, a month ago (4 Decemeber) I requested mediation for an article which I have edited ( Bosnian Mujahideen). sdirrim agreed to take on the the case. However, I have not heard anything from him since 13 December despite repeated notices on his talk page. Is there perhaps another mediator who could step in? I really would like to follow through with the mediation as I believe it would be helpful but feel that it is taking too long. Osli73 ( talk) 09:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't suppose anyone's whipped up a userbox for Cabal members? atakdoug ( talk) 00:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
This user was a volunteer mediator in the Mediation Cabal before it was closed. |
Doesn't the userbox give the game away a bit? What happens if you want to go undercover? :-P -- Kim Bruning ( talk) 12:34, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
There is no Mediation Cabal and this user isn't in it. |
-- Doug.( talk • contribs) 17:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
For convenience, the call for this is: {{ User:Doug/User medcab}}, in case anyone is interested.-- Doug.( talk • contribs) 22:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I see archives through part of 2006 and then . . . it just stops. Did we stop archiving when we started using a category? Seems like we should explain that somewhere.-- Doug.( talk • contribs) 20:25, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
In the past i was informed that I am not to attempt to mediate. Is there anything else I can do or can this be lifted?
Geoff Plourde ( talk) 06:26, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Geoff Plourde ( talk) 19:22, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
While I understand completely if you do not want me mediating, is there anything else I can do to help say on the admin end? Geoff Plourde ( talk) 07:23, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I hate to question the coordinator when I'm so new to this WP:DR venue myself, but this thread seems to confuse the informality and unofficial nature of MedCab (and to an outsider would seem to prove that there is in fact a cabal, all kidding aside). I have concerns about an editor being told he or she is not welcome to mediate or can't mediate at MedCab. If the editor has neglected cases in the past, the editor should be encouraged to co-mediate cases; if the editor has mishandled cases in the past, the editor should be encouraged to co-mediate with or at least shadow an experienced mediator. Otherwise, unless there's an ArbCom decision against this user, I don't see how we can justify this position. -- Doug.( talk • contribs) 05:29, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, checking Geoff's user page... that's interesting. Well, I'll still leave it to Doug and Addhoc what they want to do. :-) -- Kim Bruning ( talk) 08:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Is this the right place to bring such a complaint? I would like the behaviour to stop and am very willing to negotiate.-- scuro ( talk) 06:19, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Could you please give some examples? Seddon69 ( talk) 20:04, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
It's been suggested that I might be able to help in some disputes. Full disclosure does require my mentioning that I do have a mediation request (Code Pink) in the process.
Why do I think I might be qualified? Well, I have two cats, but, for the house as a whole, there are 15 cats (3 being new kittens), 5 dogs, and a rescued squirrel. At the very least, twice a day, when it is time to give out the Wet Disgusting Cat Food, I indeed herd cats.
More seriously, in various past events where I did mediate, I found one of the first priorities was finding anything, no matter how small, about which the parties agreed. That point of agreement might be, in Wikipedia terms, a "coatrack", but often it's more of an oil spot that spreads out over troubled waters, calming larger areas. (this is figurative; I don't think oil spills are terribly good for most environments).
I do have knowledge in an assortment of areas; please look at my userpage for some relevant areas.
Mediation sometimes is frustrating, and I accept that that what may be the most achievable thing is to leave the parties somewhat unhappy, but aware that all are equally unhappy with the solution and agree no one was given an advantage. It's far more satisfying, of course, when the parties can find a way to work together in a constructive way.
Howard C. Berkowitz ( talk) 22:19, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I notice that in a lot of cases (I'll give examples if anyone needs them - but they seem too common to bother referencing to me) the parties begin arguing on the MedCab page before a mediator ever arrives to open the case. Often the argument is more about "how dumb this is that you've taken this issue to this level you bozo" or worse, rather than even being a discussion of the merits. Since we often have a backlog, right now for example, are there any ideas on how to avoid this? My only thoughts would be to change the process so that there is no link from the article talk page to here until a mediator opens the case, but that would probably require more work for mediators. An alternative might be to change the template so that it has an area for the parties to accept mediation, as some mediators use regularly, but eliminate the discussion section or comment it out, leaving it to the mediator to start it up.
I would note too that the Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Suggestions_for_mediators page suggests starting out on the article's talk page without declaring oneself as a mediator. I've tried this before, but it's really difficult because usually everybody knows that the issue is with MedCab and they're all waiting for a mediator. It also creates the problem that no other mediators know you're involved because if you open the case and put your name on it you certainly can't play the incognito game. Sure that's not a big deal but with a backlog most mediators probably aren't really looking to double up unless it's to mentor a new mediator.
Thoughts?-- Doug.( talk • contribs) 19:10, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Playing devil's advocate: I don't necessarily think that the arguing on the case pages is all bad. I understand the concern about it, but it's just a continuation of existing disputes and can be useful to the volunteer taking the case. It certainly provides a snapshot of the users involved and their interactions with each other. It could also be contended that it's better for the bickering to occur on a MedCab case page, rather than further cluttering the article talk page. The case pages can always be refactored and/or archived to clear away the dross. Just some thoughts from the other side of the coin. Cheers! Vassyana ( talk) 12:03, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
By the by, if you're going to take the discreet route, don't be shy about dropping myself and/or Addhoc (or really any experienced MedCabber) an email asking us to adopt the case or close it without prejudice to reopening. Either way, we could mark the case "on hold", based on the fact that someone is already attempting to resolve the issue. The case page editing becomes a maintenance action by a coordinator or experienced volunteer. Thoughts? Vassyana ( talk) 05:26, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, the ArbCom has decided not to decide (which is what many of us expected) and put the article on probation Waterboarding. The discussion on the talk page continues, into the I don't know which repetition of the same arguments, around and around, getting hotter and hotter. Is it possible that someone from this non-existent Cabal could lend us a hand? If so, help, please, (here, there, my talk page, or email me.) Thanks, htom (OtterSmith) htom ( talk) 05:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Not that familiar with this process, but thought I'd give it a try before going for administrative intervention on the issue with the Sassanid Empire infobox, which has a map that is in dispute. It appears to be taking quite a while to get someone to look at it, though. Is there a reason for that? Could something be done to improve the case log so that it is easier to take on? Thanks. Larry Dunn ( talk) 20:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
(cur) (last) 23:26, 29 February 2008 Tone (Talk | contribs) m (Protected Janez Drnovšek: constant reverting by an anonymous user despite warnings [edit=autoconfirmed:move=autoconfirmed] (expires 23:26, 29 March 2008 (UTC))
Please unblock me. I am not anonymous, left my name in the history, and responded to the talk page. As a personal friend and interviewer of Dr. Janez Drnovsek it was his wish to have his writings included in wikipedia after he passed. They are representative of the reasons for his'change in lifestyle' and I give attribution. The above user blocks them, as well as Dr. Drnovsek's final blog (despite my request for creating a separate quote section), thus denying many people (55,000 signed the book of condolence on the internet) a fuller and relevant picture of the President. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.232.26 ( talk • contribs)
I've noticed a tendency for editors to get uncivil or engage in personal attacks when they're filing the request, immediately poisoning the well for other editors in the dispute. I think Doug was mentioning problems like this above. Do you think it is right for a mediator to see a new or open case to rewrite the request? Are there other options? I have told some requesters to rewrite the request, but they might be away, or might disagree.
It's interesting, because writing these requests is proof of needing mediation, while at the same time looking like mediation is certainly not going to work to many parties. Xavexgoem ( talk) 05:22, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Currently I am in a reversion ping-pong about the correct name to use in an article on National Bank of Greece. I don't think this is situation that is amenable to mediation because it reflects an ongoing dispute between Greece and the Republic of Macedonia. So, what should we do? Acad Ronin ( talk) 21:43, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi all - hope you can help with this. I've been approached as an admin by User:Peter Shearan over problems with an editor, User: Kentem. Kentem makes controversial edits to articles about places in southeast England, including frequent splits of articlesinto a large number of subarticles. Normally, this would be a simple mediation matter, but of Kentem's 1500+ edits, only 60 have been to talk pages, and s/he never once seems to have responded to someone else's comment (all those 60 edits are new sections/new comments) - as such, I can' work out how or where to list concerns in the disputes process pages. Basically, we've got an editor working against the consensus of other editors, who refuses to discuss matters at all. Some indication of the scope of the problem can be seen from User_talk:Kentem, which is full of AFD/prod notices and queries as to edits - none of which has been answered. Technically, s/he's not doing anything which warrants a block, but it's becoming quite disruptive. Any suggestions/help would be appreciated! Grutness... wha? 23:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Israeli-Palestinian conflict has been edit-protected. I'm not filing a fiormal medcab request, but it wouldn't hurt to have someone keep an eye there, and perhaps add a neutral viewpoint. thanks. -- Steve, Sm8900 ( talk) 15:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
After discussion with many people off wiki about this subject i felt it would be a good idea to see if there is widespread consensus for this to happen. These two methods of dispute resolution are similar but differ mainly in that 3O deals with disputes between two editors and MEBCAB deals with multiple editors. I felt that the referral between these two groups should be streamlined to allow quicker referral from one to the other. Although this does exist in the form or a suggestion on the WP:3O page and there is no such suggestion on the MEDCAB page. What i am proposing is a direct referral process, so that what multi party disputes posted at WP:3O can be quickly and efficiently be passed on to WP:MEDCAB and vice versa with regards to 2 party disputes. Given that most content disputes 99.99% of the time have to go through MEDCAB before going on to MEDCOM it seems a sensible idea. This could happen by the referral by the cabalists and 3O contributers themselves with a message on the parties concerned informing them of the referral. Seddon69 ( talk) 18:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC) message also posted at 3O and dispute resolution
I went ahead and mentioned 3O and RfC in Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/howto. At the same time, I've also "loosened up" the language and instructions to some degree. We are after all informal and generally encourage tongues to go in cheeks on occasion. :) Vassyana ( talk) 12:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Though, if a medcab mediator wants to take a 2 person case, they shouldn't not be able to. ;-) -- Kim Bruning ( talk) 01:07, 16 March 2008 (UTC) talk about double negatives :-p
Hi, i am having a such big trouble and i am being victim of harrassment, false accusations, personal attacks and treats to be banned. I have came back from a brief break and since AMA is gone i dont know who may be my advocate. I really need help. I am sorry my english is not fairly good, but i would be pleased to give full details on my discussion page. =( -- HappyApple ( talk) 08:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
AMA was replaced. :-) Sounds like a job for editor assistance? -- Kim Bruning ( talk) 10:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't look like you were blocked for anything here.
This edit seems like it may be the cause of the problems, as you are approaching Dodo a bit aggressively. Is there any sort of group similar to the arbitration committee on the Spanish wikipedia?
Cowman109
Talk 20:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
But can the Comité de resolución de conflictos help? Is it essentially the Arbitration Committee here? I would hope there is some sort of higher power that serves as a check on the administrators to make sure nothing bad happens..
Es el Comité de resolución y el arbitration committee en el wikipedia inglés la misma cosa? No entiendo porque no puedes pedir a ellos que te ayuden..? Me parece que lo mejor que puedes hacer es esperar por los dias y ir a ellos, a menos que haya algo que no puedo entender? En la wikipedia inglés el arbitration committee tiene más poder que los admins y tiene otro luego en el jerarquía si quieres decirlo en esta manera.. basicamente ellos no son en el mismo 'lado' de los admins, entonces no deberían... side(?) con ellos. Cowman109 Talk 21:56, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
For the record, last night (around the time of my last comments) I left a note on Dodo's es talk page. dihydrogen monoxide ( H2O) 22:05, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, that's on spanish though. We *could* look there, maaayyyybe, but first up, Are there any issues on en? -- Kim Bruning ( talk) 03:32, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Part of the paper trail: Got this page, + translation assistance with the help of Mushii_W on #wikipedia-es
es:Usuario:Gaeddal/bloqueo_de_CleverChemist (block of CleverChemist (== HappyApple?) )
The diff from Gaeddal is about the post in question, at the Wikimeeting (?).
I guess HappyApple is sort of forum shopping here. ^^;;;
-- Kim Bruning ( talk) 02:42, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
HappyApple has requested the case be closed here -- Kim Bruning ( talk) 04:02, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Dodo has responded to some allegations re. HappyApple here. I believe him. dihydrogen monoxide ( H2O) 06:16, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
User of the en:wiki should know that neither user HappyApple nor Messhermit are free to write here. Both has been accused and blocked in the Spanish:wikipedia for their words here (Ecemamml is one of the punishers who explicitly reproached that). As they should know that user SadPuppy has been created just to 'answer' against HappyApple [15]. May I suggest an IP check as a possible puppet user? The name SadPuppet may mean something and this allows him/her very aggressive expressions against HappyApple with nothing to lose. It's unfair.
HappyApple has even been accused of the exit of Dodo from the es:wiki (unfortunately without any proof) What kind of accusation is that?
If the words of an es:wiki users who also is an en:wikipedian on es:wiki users can be used to block him in the es:wiki, the logical conclusion is that the words of an en:wikipedian in the es:wikipedia against an en:wikipedian (who also is es:wikipedian) can be sanctioned. Otherwise, it's not fair.
User dihydrogen monoxide, what a pity you don't read Spanish. But it's unwise to believe only one side if you can't known the proofs. It's a kind of ad hominem: I know this person ergo he is right, I don't know that person ergo he is wrong. There is many proofs on what Messhermit, before being "visited" in the es:wiki, tried to write on Dodo's bad reputation. I have a very poor opinion on Dodo as administrator of the es:wiki, as I know many of his actions, but of course my opinion doesn't mind here. Independent references? Read on the es:wiki an example. An authomatic translator should be able to allow you to get an impression.
I think that if someone request mediation, he (or she) can be right or can be wrong, but obviously he should be free to expose his case without interferences from Dodo's friends, Spanish administrators [16] or puppets.
When someone informs of a problem, it's because he thinks there is a problem (maybe right, may be wrong). If the fact of telling that he thinks that other person is unfair with him is to be considered a defamation beforehand and being object of reprisals by the friends of the other side, there could be never a request for mediation.
Kim Bruning, you should check whether Sadpuppy is a puppet user and whether what has happened here is O.K. IMHO it is too irregular. -- Dilvish 10 words ( talk) 18:49, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Hello, some controversy arose between my self and another editor over an edit on the Coral Smith article. Actually, the dispute was a day ago. I found the user’s behavior to be particularly incivil so I chose to put the issue on hold for the time. It ended with me having to withdraw from the situation because I knew it was a no-win one. I withdrew by giving the editor a friendly comment on his user page just to let him know that this is nothing personal, but merely an attempt at improving the article, he thanked me, and that's where things left off at.
Basically the editing dispute is over whether The Real World/Road Rules Challenge spinned off from both The Real World and Road Rules and not just The Real World. His position is that it is only a spin off of The Real World because that show came out before Road Rules and started it all. My position is that Real World/Road Rules Challenge spinned off from The Real World, as well as Road Rules because: 1.) It really doesn't make a difference because Road Rules came out long before The Real World/Road Rules Challenge too. It only has to come before The Challenge series, not The Real World 2.) The name of the show also has the name Road Rules in it and contestants from Road Rules so I thought that would make for a clear indicator 3.) The show actually has more elements of Road Rules than The Real World as the show is surrounded around making use of challenges and has a lot in common with Road Rules 4.) Our own Wikipedia page on The Real World/Road Rules Challenge has it as a spin off of both shows (in the first paragraph) and has had it that way for a great deal of time (perhaps even years now) without any objection from anyone as shown here: [17] 5.) I even went so far as to provide a source to which I showed the user, but he reverted my edit anyway without communicating why in his edit summmary except for writing "Revert" as shown here [18]. Btw, this was my source [19]
I'd also like to note that he’s tried getting rid of this particular edit another time, but for a different reason. He actually didn't continue to use that same reason as it was a faulty accusation against me, as shown here [20]: It basically states that I had added something into the article that I never did, yet he tells me to read clearly. When I reverted that and corrected him about it (very civily) here [21], he comes back and incivily came up with the reason we're now disputing about, through this edit here [22]. Though he says, "Stop reverting it, and stop edit warring with me" while reverting back the edit, I’d like to note that I had only reverted it one time as opposed to the two times he had reverted it at that point.
Justifying my self and finding a source for my work hasn't seemed to work so I am hoping someone outside of the dispute could help. Thank you! BicMacDad18 ( talk) 20:07, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for responding Nightscream! I do apologize if you feel that this is a show of caprice, but I thought you were a little cooled off and more willing to have rational conversation with me about the issue now that it's a day later. In my opinion, you seemed uncivil the other day and unwilling to reason. You say this is trivial yet you've engaged in edit warring over the matter which shows conflicting feelings.
We can both sit here and come up with a million complaints about each other, but I am sure an outside party does not have the time nor the patience to deal with every last one of them. I now ask that an outside party just focus on the edit in conflict which is whether or not The Real World/Road Rules Challenge is spinned off from both shows (Real World and Road Rules) or just the Real World, which (again) I have provided a source for and Nightscream has not. BicMacDad18 ( talk) 22:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Nightscream, please remember that an agreement can only be reached when everyone cooperates calmly and politely as noted in The Wikipedia: Mediation Cabal article. Refering to any good faith edit as "bad edits" isn't cooperating politely. We're here to come to a resolution, not to insult each other's edits or become hostile with one another. Thank you! BicMacDad18 ( talk) 02:52, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
ADMIN NOW EDIT WARRING WITH OTHER USERS AS WELL IN A VERY SIMILAR SITUATION
I'd like to note that this admin is currently engaged in a very similar heated situation on The Real World article, edit warring, only against what looks to be several editors, as shown here [23]. The dispute is over a "date" with Nightscream protecting the page on the date he wants in the article, as shown here [24]. Given that it seems there are several editors in disagreement with Nightscream, he shouldn't be protecting the page and calling all of them disruptive, but initiating a discussion on the article talk page (which has not be done), inserting a [citation needed] link, or coming here to get the other edit war problem he's having resolved. BicMacDad18 ( talk) 17:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Gwandoya's comment has nothing to do with the debate over the edit in conflict and the topic of this discussion which is Coral Smith article. It serves no purpose here. I have tried to delete the above remark with a very clear edit summary reasoning of why, but it doesn't seem as if I am going to get anywhere with the user as she's beginning to edit war about it here [26] and here [27]. My issues with her sprouted here [28] when she reverted material I had added into the Coral Smith article without explaining why in her edit summary. When I reverted it back here (with my reason why): [29] and gave her this kind note on her talk page: [30], this is how she responded [31]. She's stated that her response of "I don't have to answer to that" was a mistake. However, the very fact that she says she is above edit warring here [32] after beginning to engage in it on this page causes me to question the honesty of her comments. Again, however, because this is all irrelevant to the topic at hand and I don't want the point of this discussion to shift, I will refrain from responding to her on these issues any further than this comment. BicMacDad18 ( talk) 23:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Anyone have any thoughts on this Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-09-11 Falkland Islands/Mediation/Draft-Alex-1? There are two pages nominated, both subpages of the same mediation. Looks like Eagle 101 was the mediator.-- Doug.( talk • contribs) 22:59, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I've recently become acquainted with some people at the University of Washington who have been researching our little encyclopedia project, from a variety of angles. I've been put in touch with Travis Kriplean ( User:Leafman), whose work deals with conflict resolution, and how we build consensus on controversial topics. I expect we'll be meeting face-to-face soon, and I'm very interested to see what kind of definite statements we can make about dispute resolution methods. User:Kim Bruning asked me to post here, as this might be relevant to mediators' interests. I'll let you know as developments progress. - GTBacchus( talk) 02:13, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi everyone, I'm glad to hear that there's interest in my research! I'm looking forward to talking with Tony and everyone in the future. The anecdotes that Howard posts above are intriguing and I'd love to be involved in a systemic effort to typify situations where different approaches yield better results with respect to dispute resolution (and see if there is the possibility for tools that may help mediators like yourselves more readily identify those situations). Leafman ( talk) 01:48, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, there's an old cases list, and then there's the current ongoing cases here. That's a start. Then there's third opinion which might also keep an archive. Then there's Editor Assistence, Requests for comment... oh, well that's a start that will keep you busy for a while. -- Kim Bruning ( talk) 05:37, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Hello, I am need of assitance here in regards to this article. I have been in discussion with multiple admins on how to resolve the past issues in regards to this article. I was working with the admins who, after all the changes they felt were necessary, allowed the article to be recreated. However as soon as it was recreated another couple of admins almost immediately deleted the article citing reasons that clearly were opinionated and obvious that no research into the article was made before deletion. Further more, non of the admins in question even bothered to contact me first before deleting the article. I am finding this type of behavior unreasonable, and frankly dissrespectful not only to myself, but to the other admins that allowed this artle to be published. What can be done to rectify this problem?
Thank you. Succisa75 ( talk) 18:34, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I've changed my user name from 'Addhoc' to 'PhilKnight', which surprisingly enough is my real name. PhilKnight ( talk) 01:44, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
You can place a cabal-lovin' "bumper sticker" on your user page, if you'd like. See an example of its use on User:Vassyana. Image:I Heart the Cabal.png courtesy of Slowking Man's contribution to the public domain. Cheers! Vassyana ( talk) 13:36, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Wikistuffs: <center> {{Click |image = I Heart the Cabal.png |link = WP:MEDCAB }} </center>