![]() | 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 |
---|
I've noticed that User:Soltak doesn't seem to be responding to mediation requests to which he has been assigned, such as Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-02-14 In Search of Lost Time (which is two months old). This person is obviously not a quality mediator. Guermantes 20:02, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
I think the mediator in my case, Tmorton166, has done a commendable job. He has had to put up with the same sorts of aggression and bullying that my adversary has inflicted on me. Accordingly, and unfortunately, I believe the mediator has been intimidated by this adversary into siding with him, as the adversary has made it clear that he will fight anyone who stands in his way, mediator or no.
The mediator is young (19) and new to this, and I believe he has, understandably, been intimidated by my adversary who has apparantly a great deal of experience in fighting other Wikipedians.
I have sought clarification of the mediator's verdict but have not yet received any, though my adversary has "clarified" it for me yet again by restating the position he came in with regardless of what the mediator has to say. Case: Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-05-28_Editor_abuse_and_threats -- Ewrobbel 15:46, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree with you after reviewing the case file. Tmorton166 did a good job. Geo.plrd 22:26, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Now, basically, I do not wish to escalate this nerve-wrecking case much further, but I would like to encourage the other members of the mediation cabal to look into this case and hopefully prevent such travesties in the future.
Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-06-04 Cisgender was initially brought forward by User:Catamorphism in what would have seemed a valid complaint if said Catamorphism would not have invited User:FemVoice to comment as well, knowing fully well that said FemVoice has hysterically persecuted me for weeks, practically since she came to WP. FemVoice immediately responded with a mindless rant that consisted of very little facts, but lots of slander and lies. ( [1], refuting of the most obvious slander and lies: User:AlexR/060607.) Granted, after that I was seriously pissed off. Understandably angry, I blanked the page twice completely, wishing to obliterate this slander and lies. (I should, in hindsight, just either have removed her rand, demanding facts (which are not exactly there) or immediately escalated the case to formal dispute resolutions.) That was probably when User:Usrnme h8er decided that whatever I did was proov that I was the bad guy or something. He threatened me with blocking me, making it clear that he didn't give a damn about thruth or facts as long as I was on the recieving end of lies and slander and threats. And after that, he had the audacity to propose himself as a mediatior, after making it very clear on whose side he was. (For example [2]) I refused, not only because this was or at the very least had become a decidedly bad-faith case, but because the would-be mediator (can't be bothered to recall that cryptic username) was so obviously not neutral.
After cooling off somewhat, I decided not to lend credit to this harassment and slander case and removed all my contributions, which, I may say, is, under the circumstances and because this is hardly an article or even a talk page, perfectly justified. I also inserted the link above to my refutation of FemVoices lies and slander. And what happens? FemVoice restores them, and the would-be moderator (shouldn't a moderator be accepted by both sides?) then (!) deletes the slander rant and my contributions (including the refutation of said rant and all my comments) and then closes the case and still claims that all the lies and slander where perfectly factually accurate and that I was the bad guy here by refusing to participate in this travesty, lying some more about me, as well, for example by claiming that I "continually" blanked the page, and that he did not see any slander and lies. [3]
Now, after having been harassed by FemVoice for almost 2 weeks, since the day she came to WP, I certainly was not in a good mood, and may have behaved less than perfectly. However, from somebody who claims to be a moderator, I expect at least a semblance of neutrality, and not a participation in such harassment. I also expect mediation cases not to be abused to harass, lie about, and slander a person, no matter whether that person's nerves gave way before such a harassment. I therefore would very much like to encourage the mediation cabal to put up guidelines to prevent such abuses of cases and by would-be moderators in the future.
I may also say that if FemVoice or the would-be moderator continue to harass me, I will escalate this case, even though I am sick and tired of it. So far the only thing this constant harassment has attained is that I had to (hopefully temporary) abandon my username with a few thousand edits and a history dating back to 2002 to escape this. Even if one looses ones nerves after weeks of harassment, that should not be necessary. And it should certainly not be supported by a would-be mediatior. -- AlexR 09:53, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, I'm not at all sure whether I'm in the right place; I do not really want to complain about anyone, at this point, but I'm wondering whether what I've seen so far is a typical mediation process:
At this point, I'm just glad that talk page doesn't have a door people can slam ...
Again, this isn't really a complaint. I understand the mediators are putting a lot of time in, so maybe it's helpful to describe how a specific mediation process appears to a "participant" (I guess?) Is this typical? Is that how people intend it to be?
I frankly don't see how "informal mediation" and threats of, essentially, "if you don't do as I say you'll just lose the arbitration case" go together. Wouldn't it be better just to give the mediation cabal real authority, then, so I don't have to "argue" with them to find out why I should do as they say?
Can anyone help my understanding of the process here?
RandomP 18:50, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
6 cases have been left behind without a mediator, so I'm linking them here to keep track of them - I'll ask those involved in the disputes what they'd like to do. Cowman109 Talk 22:10, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
I was looking over the case and I happened to notice that the user requesting mediation was a fresh user. I'm not sure who handles things like this, and I'm not sure if I should contact the user ( AquaticTheory) concerning this. Any suggestions? SynergeticMaggot 06:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
How do I close a case, or is this done by someone else? SynergeticMaggot 23:27, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
[ [4]] appears to have been abandoned. The terms of the mediator's agreement have been met, but some on the other side have broken their agreement to the terms. I have repeatedly e-mailed the current mediator, but have not received a response. - MSTCrow 01:03, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm a little concerned over the process of this mediation. Initialy, none of the people named in this were contacted or notified, and I've had to do so myself. (Most of the people named had not been formaly told they had been named, announcment of mediation was made as a general announcment on the article talk page without identifying those named as parties to mediation. Edited 14:04, 13 August 2006 (UTC)) Rather than act as a mediator and guiding people to come to a concensus, CP/M appears to be activly taking a position on what they belive is the right/wrong way to do things. (Similar seems to have occured in
Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-07-12_Solar_Updraft_Tower) It is my understanding that the mediator is not to act as a judge of what is right or wrong, but to atempt to assist the editors of the page to come to their own compromise. Further to that, they edited a comment from someone involved to 'correct it', in such a way that upset. Can someone please check over CP/M's activities as a mediator. --
Barberio
16:04, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Following on from discussion on IRC, I'm going to ask for a new mediator in this case. -- Barberio 16:51, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
I've decided to take the case, archived the old case page, and refactored the case page layout considerably. Hopefully a compromise will be reached quickly, and I doubt ArbCom is needed for this dispute. I agree with Kylu: ArbCom will not make a favorable ruling (to you). Mediation is in your best interests, and at this stage, I don't think ArbCom would take the case. However, let's not let it get to the point where they will. :] Cheers! -- Keitei ( talk) 22:46, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
I would love to help with mediation. So, I would like to know how I can join, and if I can help. Thanks! Wiki eZach| talk 23:38, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
I requested mediation a while back, since then nothing much has happened. The Potter's House
Potters house 08:26, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Good question. I also requested mediation here [ [5]], but so far no response. Why? Tashtastic 12:57, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
I reuested GofG recuse himself as moderator in my case with Tewfik. I did so because GofG admitted having off-wiki conversations with Tewfik which he failed to disclose until asked.
First, I thank GofG for his efforts, and I think he was of great help, and remained civil even in difficult situations. I harbor absolutely no ill-will against him.
Second, nevertheless I cannot trust him as a moderator of my case not because he had off-wiki communication with Tewfik, but because until I asked I was not made aware of this communication. This I feel is a serious breach of the trust that must exist between moderators and participants.
Third, I have seen this pattern of off-wiki communication having disastrous consequence on the trust of the parties in the process towards the moderator.
Fourth, in real life moderation proceedings, contact between moderators and parties of the moderation without the knowledge of other parties is frowned upon or forbidden.
Fifth, perhaps the Moderation Cabal should consider either banning specific moderation-related off wiki communications, or put some rules on this regards. If not, I can for see how the process can and will be called into question.
Sixth, to explain my opposition to off-wiki communication: I think IRC and email are useful tools, but they are limited and different from a wiki in several respects:
Off-wiki methods lack this, and we essentially are elft to the word of the involved parties. ANd while we must assume good faith, the technology of wikis makes the assumption of good faith easy because of its accountable, reliable and community-driven functions. The other methods lack this.
In a moderation process even the appeareance of improperiety can destroy the process, and this is not a good thing. By regimenting or eliminating off-wiki communication we do a lot to eliminate mis-understandings and the appearance of improperiety.-- Cerejota 13:51, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Mediation of this case has stalled and has descended into personal attacks and outright abandonment of the case. Both sides refuse to compromise, and there are new allegations two parties have actually imported their grievances from the group to Wikipedia. I have tried to get both sides talking, but now they agitate for the case to close without agreement. -- physicq210 20:04, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
The only problem now is that there are allegations that two of the parties were expelled members of the organization/movement in question and have "imported" their views onto Wikipedia. Even though as a mediator I wish not to, I'm starting to view this as a dangerous combination of both content and conduct dispute. -- physicq210 03:40, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
I am mediating a case on the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus talk page. At the moment, I believe the issue will go to a vote, but one of the parties believes that sockpuppets are being used. I am asking both parties to consider the vote binding, so the vote is relatively important. That said, is there a way of screening out possible sockpuppets in this vote? Thanks for your help. LawrenceTrevallion 01:09, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the information. LawrenceTrevallion 06:18, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
So uh... Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-08-06 theopedia/all should be deleted because... well... uh, just read it to find out why. ;) -- The Prophet Wizard of the Cray on Cake 22:41, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
On 12 August 2006, I opened a mediation case over a dispute over where the Homerun article should redirect to.
On 25 August 2006, although no mediation had taken place, CQJ closed the case. CQJ reasoned that the "situation seems to be well at hand" and the issue has somewhat died off". He also posted that a "neutral third party", Richardshusr, was working on the dispute.
The issue appeared to have somewhat died off because I was taking a Wikibreak from 15-31 August due to stress caused by on-wiki issues. In addition, when informing me that the case had been closed, Richardshusr stated that he "disagreed with...the mediator's characterization of [him] as a neutral third party" because he "has an opinion and has expressed it in the vote". [6]
As I have returned from my break, and wish to continue mediation, how do I re-open the case, or request the case be re-opened?
-- J.L.W.S. The Special One 13:45, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
~Kylu ( u| t) 01:55, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
I had suspended participation in the MedCab after the recent Israel-Lebanon ArbCom case was started, as I was involved as a mediator in the pre-ArbCom mediation case. In the meantime I was finishing some cases and doing mediation on my own behalf without associating with MedCab, and generally have dealt with my backlog. Since the ArbCom case was closed and the ArbCom resolution did not consider me guilty in the case, I'm thinking about whether I should return to participation in the MedCab.
I would like to see a more detailed review of my actions by MedCab members, especially the opinions and criticism about the related case, advices on how I could improve (besides being more careful, I've got it already), and generally opinions on whether I have been doing acceptable/inacceptable job with MedCab and whether I would be appropriate/not as a mediator. CP/M comm 21:14, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Okie-dokie. Guess that means all the popular people like you, so you get to livemediate. :) ~Kylu (
u|
t)
22:45, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
While I'm grateful to Wissahickon Creek for mediating in this case, I'm unhappy with the procedure that was followed:
As far as I can tell, this is Wissahickon Creek's first mediation, and is a new user (account created 22 October, but maybe s/he was editing under another username before). Could another mediator take a look at this and see if further action is warranted? Thank you. --Akhilleus ( talk) 19:40, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
[for sensitive categories:] Try to limit the number of categories to what is most essential about this person, something in the vein of: "give me 4 or 5 words that best characterize this person."
While I can't speak for all the coordinators nor for all the cabal, it is my personal opinion that Wissahickon Creek's actions are detrimental to the purpose of arriving at a consensus in this debate. I would suggest he read Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Suggestions for mediators and note that mediators never give decisions or issue decrees. The goal is to create a compromise that all parties can agree to, not to make some arbitrary decision that they must abide by. I must echo the concerns brought forward by Josiah Rowe on Wissahickon Creek's talk page.
I would ask that Wissahickon Creek no longer mediate this case and instead observe some mediations in progress for a time until he has a better grasp of Wikipedia's Mediation Cabal, and indeed mediation itself. -- Keitei ( talk) 17:40, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
No. Even if some guys here want to impose a POV there, I still believe the compromise solution was given. Even the editor that seems not happy that I refused his POV has accepted the fact that he's trying to impose a blatant POV there. All other editors have agreed that the presented solution represents the best solution for Alexander article. Just because I don't accept blatant POV doensn't mean I haven't reached a good solution. I suggest other editors to get used with NPOV statements before trying to have a mediation process there. Otherwise they will impose and push their POV forever. They don't try to reach a compromise, can't you see them? They are trying to impose a blatant POV. I will mediate this case until this compromise solution will be accepted, as other editors accepted so far. -- Wissahickon Creek talk 18:19, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
I have to say, I question the suitability of an editor with less than 150 edits as a mediator. I think perhaps another mediator should look over this case. -- Lord Deskana ( talk) 18:37, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
I would like again to request, as politely as I can, that Wissahickon Creek recuse himself. I feel that by calling me a POV-pusher, he is de facto no longer a mediator, but a party in the dispute. I would welcome his further participation in the discussion, as I would any editor in good standing, but I do not believe that he is a suitable mediator for this case. Since this is a voluntary process, and I am the one who filed the request for mediation, I believe that it's reasonable for me to ask Wissahickon Creek to bow out. --Akhilleus ( talk) 19:50, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks ~Kylu ( u| t) ! I will welcome any new mediator that will assist me in this mediation process, since I want to learn to mediate as suggested and I will definitely remove any POV from the article. I will support, from the mediator's position, a compromise solution to the article. -- Wissahickon Creek talk 20:22, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
As Wissahickon Creek in the attempt to mediate this case
and as I have received many complaints and requests of recusal from multiple parties (Josiah Rowe, Akhilleus, CaveatLector, NikoSilver), both publicly and in private, and as Wissahickon Creek has not heeded many polite requests that he recuse himself from this case, I hereby ask that he no longer mediate the case on Talk:Alexander the Great, assisting or otherwise. -- Keitei ( talk) 00:49, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Please see the following mediation cabal [7], there has been very minimal interaction by the mediator on this. The mediator never responded or really discussed anything. The mediator made two suggestions and then it appears the mediator has been away for a while. I would like to sincerely request for another mediator who will be more active in participating and discussing in this. Elalan 14:30, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia_talk:Mediation_Cabal#Another_mediator_needed:
Mediator Gzkn needs a bit of help, since he's off-clock from the disputants and it seems to flame up when he's not around.
He's requesting help from US/Canada timezones, preferably. ~Kylu ( u| t) 05:30, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
I've been the target of some accusations over at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006- 11- 25 Email Harrassment over a disagreement about a fact posted on here. The user who posted it seems to have vanished entirely, but for my own comfort I would like to have a Mediator take a look and confirm that these claims are untrue. Whenever you have time. Thanks. -- Masamage 01:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-11-28 Image:Ann Coulter.jpg can be removed, the situation sorted itself out. I am the one who made the request. -- Oden 14:20, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
This one is stalled out and people are discouraged. This mediation affects about 100 articles. Much posting from conflicting parties but no consensus. Mediator has been almost completely absent. Request for new mediator. -- Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦ ♫ 21:05, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
See also: Wikipedia_talk:Mediation_Cabal#Mediator_never_turned_up -- Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦ ♫ 21:07, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
I am retiring after cleaning up any cases left. G eo. 02:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
This is surely an example of aggressive canvassing of pro-republican users to gain support for use of "Volunteer" when describing IRA members: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/DownDaRoad. Logica 00:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
"An arbitrator clarified the position: "Briefly, I think a reasonable amount of communication about issues is fine. Aggressive propaganda campaigns are not. The difference lies in the disruption involved. If what is happening is getting everyone upset then it is a problem. Often the dividing line is crossed when you are contacting a number of people who do not ordinarily edit the disputed article.""
Logica 01:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
See also:
Image:CabaleAuFondDuJardin.jpg,
Image:CabaleMasquee.jpg,
Image:CabaleNoNeko-couleur-Rama.jpg
Doesn't have to do with anything, just figured it was funny. n.n (No, this isn't the kind of edit I make all day.) ~Kylu (
u|
t)
05:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi, can I request help in having a mediation for the article Janjua talk page. A user using sock puppets keeps deleting sourced material. Can you help in resolving the dispute on the talk page which is escalating into abuse after the user in question has been answered with references and sources. I fear this may require an arb com eventually..... Thanks for the help in anticipation and happy holidays in the mean time :-) -- Raja 17:43, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
![]() | 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 |
---|
I've noticed that User:Soltak doesn't seem to be responding to mediation requests to which he has been assigned, such as Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-02-14 In Search of Lost Time (which is two months old). This person is obviously not a quality mediator. Guermantes 20:02, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
I think the mediator in my case, Tmorton166, has done a commendable job. He has had to put up with the same sorts of aggression and bullying that my adversary has inflicted on me. Accordingly, and unfortunately, I believe the mediator has been intimidated by this adversary into siding with him, as the adversary has made it clear that he will fight anyone who stands in his way, mediator or no.
The mediator is young (19) and new to this, and I believe he has, understandably, been intimidated by my adversary who has apparantly a great deal of experience in fighting other Wikipedians.
I have sought clarification of the mediator's verdict but have not yet received any, though my adversary has "clarified" it for me yet again by restating the position he came in with regardless of what the mediator has to say. Case: Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-05-28_Editor_abuse_and_threats -- Ewrobbel 15:46, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree with you after reviewing the case file. Tmorton166 did a good job. Geo.plrd 22:26, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Now, basically, I do not wish to escalate this nerve-wrecking case much further, but I would like to encourage the other members of the mediation cabal to look into this case and hopefully prevent such travesties in the future.
Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-06-04 Cisgender was initially brought forward by User:Catamorphism in what would have seemed a valid complaint if said Catamorphism would not have invited User:FemVoice to comment as well, knowing fully well that said FemVoice has hysterically persecuted me for weeks, practically since she came to WP. FemVoice immediately responded with a mindless rant that consisted of very little facts, but lots of slander and lies. ( [1], refuting of the most obvious slander and lies: User:AlexR/060607.) Granted, after that I was seriously pissed off. Understandably angry, I blanked the page twice completely, wishing to obliterate this slander and lies. (I should, in hindsight, just either have removed her rand, demanding facts (which are not exactly there) or immediately escalated the case to formal dispute resolutions.) That was probably when User:Usrnme h8er decided that whatever I did was proov that I was the bad guy or something. He threatened me with blocking me, making it clear that he didn't give a damn about thruth or facts as long as I was on the recieving end of lies and slander and threats. And after that, he had the audacity to propose himself as a mediatior, after making it very clear on whose side he was. (For example [2]) I refused, not only because this was or at the very least had become a decidedly bad-faith case, but because the would-be mediator (can't be bothered to recall that cryptic username) was so obviously not neutral.
After cooling off somewhat, I decided not to lend credit to this harassment and slander case and removed all my contributions, which, I may say, is, under the circumstances and because this is hardly an article or even a talk page, perfectly justified. I also inserted the link above to my refutation of FemVoices lies and slander. And what happens? FemVoice restores them, and the would-be moderator (shouldn't a moderator be accepted by both sides?) then (!) deletes the slander rant and my contributions (including the refutation of said rant and all my comments) and then closes the case and still claims that all the lies and slander where perfectly factually accurate and that I was the bad guy here by refusing to participate in this travesty, lying some more about me, as well, for example by claiming that I "continually" blanked the page, and that he did not see any slander and lies. [3]
Now, after having been harassed by FemVoice for almost 2 weeks, since the day she came to WP, I certainly was not in a good mood, and may have behaved less than perfectly. However, from somebody who claims to be a moderator, I expect at least a semblance of neutrality, and not a participation in such harassment. I also expect mediation cases not to be abused to harass, lie about, and slander a person, no matter whether that person's nerves gave way before such a harassment. I therefore would very much like to encourage the mediation cabal to put up guidelines to prevent such abuses of cases and by would-be moderators in the future.
I may also say that if FemVoice or the would-be moderator continue to harass me, I will escalate this case, even though I am sick and tired of it. So far the only thing this constant harassment has attained is that I had to (hopefully temporary) abandon my username with a few thousand edits and a history dating back to 2002 to escape this. Even if one looses ones nerves after weeks of harassment, that should not be necessary. And it should certainly not be supported by a would-be mediatior. -- AlexR 09:53, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, I'm not at all sure whether I'm in the right place; I do not really want to complain about anyone, at this point, but I'm wondering whether what I've seen so far is a typical mediation process:
At this point, I'm just glad that talk page doesn't have a door people can slam ...
Again, this isn't really a complaint. I understand the mediators are putting a lot of time in, so maybe it's helpful to describe how a specific mediation process appears to a "participant" (I guess?) Is this typical? Is that how people intend it to be?
I frankly don't see how "informal mediation" and threats of, essentially, "if you don't do as I say you'll just lose the arbitration case" go together. Wouldn't it be better just to give the mediation cabal real authority, then, so I don't have to "argue" with them to find out why I should do as they say?
Can anyone help my understanding of the process here?
RandomP 18:50, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
6 cases have been left behind without a mediator, so I'm linking them here to keep track of them - I'll ask those involved in the disputes what they'd like to do. Cowman109 Talk 22:10, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
I was looking over the case and I happened to notice that the user requesting mediation was a fresh user. I'm not sure who handles things like this, and I'm not sure if I should contact the user ( AquaticTheory) concerning this. Any suggestions? SynergeticMaggot 06:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
How do I close a case, or is this done by someone else? SynergeticMaggot 23:27, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
[ [4]] appears to have been abandoned. The terms of the mediator's agreement have been met, but some on the other side have broken their agreement to the terms. I have repeatedly e-mailed the current mediator, but have not received a response. - MSTCrow 01:03, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm a little concerned over the process of this mediation. Initialy, none of the people named in this were contacted or notified, and I've had to do so myself. (Most of the people named had not been formaly told they had been named, announcment of mediation was made as a general announcment on the article talk page without identifying those named as parties to mediation. Edited 14:04, 13 August 2006 (UTC)) Rather than act as a mediator and guiding people to come to a concensus, CP/M appears to be activly taking a position on what they belive is the right/wrong way to do things. (Similar seems to have occured in
Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-07-12_Solar_Updraft_Tower) It is my understanding that the mediator is not to act as a judge of what is right or wrong, but to atempt to assist the editors of the page to come to their own compromise. Further to that, they edited a comment from someone involved to 'correct it', in such a way that upset. Can someone please check over CP/M's activities as a mediator. --
Barberio
16:04, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Following on from discussion on IRC, I'm going to ask for a new mediator in this case. -- Barberio 16:51, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
I've decided to take the case, archived the old case page, and refactored the case page layout considerably. Hopefully a compromise will be reached quickly, and I doubt ArbCom is needed for this dispute. I agree with Kylu: ArbCom will not make a favorable ruling (to you). Mediation is in your best interests, and at this stage, I don't think ArbCom would take the case. However, let's not let it get to the point where they will. :] Cheers! -- Keitei ( talk) 22:46, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
I would love to help with mediation. So, I would like to know how I can join, and if I can help. Thanks! Wiki eZach| talk 23:38, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
I requested mediation a while back, since then nothing much has happened. The Potter's House
Potters house 08:26, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Good question. I also requested mediation here [ [5]], but so far no response. Why? Tashtastic 12:57, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
I reuested GofG recuse himself as moderator in my case with Tewfik. I did so because GofG admitted having off-wiki conversations with Tewfik which he failed to disclose until asked.
First, I thank GofG for his efforts, and I think he was of great help, and remained civil even in difficult situations. I harbor absolutely no ill-will against him.
Second, nevertheless I cannot trust him as a moderator of my case not because he had off-wiki communication with Tewfik, but because until I asked I was not made aware of this communication. This I feel is a serious breach of the trust that must exist between moderators and participants.
Third, I have seen this pattern of off-wiki communication having disastrous consequence on the trust of the parties in the process towards the moderator.
Fourth, in real life moderation proceedings, contact between moderators and parties of the moderation without the knowledge of other parties is frowned upon or forbidden.
Fifth, perhaps the Moderation Cabal should consider either banning specific moderation-related off wiki communications, or put some rules on this regards. If not, I can for see how the process can and will be called into question.
Sixth, to explain my opposition to off-wiki communication: I think IRC and email are useful tools, but they are limited and different from a wiki in several respects:
Off-wiki methods lack this, and we essentially are elft to the word of the involved parties. ANd while we must assume good faith, the technology of wikis makes the assumption of good faith easy because of its accountable, reliable and community-driven functions. The other methods lack this.
In a moderation process even the appeareance of improperiety can destroy the process, and this is not a good thing. By regimenting or eliminating off-wiki communication we do a lot to eliminate mis-understandings and the appearance of improperiety.-- Cerejota 13:51, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Mediation of this case has stalled and has descended into personal attacks and outright abandonment of the case. Both sides refuse to compromise, and there are new allegations two parties have actually imported their grievances from the group to Wikipedia. I have tried to get both sides talking, but now they agitate for the case to close without agreement. -- physicq210 20:04, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
The only problem now is that there are allegations that two of the parties were expelled members of the organization/movement in question and have "imported" their views onto Wikipedia. Even though as a mediator I wish not to, I'm starting to view this as a dangerous combination of both content and conduct dispute. -- physicq210 03:40, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
I am mediating a case on the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus talk page. At the moment, I believe the issue will go to a vote, but one of the parties believes that sockpuppets are being used. I am asking both parties to consider the vote binding, so the vote is relatively important. That said, is there a way of screening out possible sockpuppets in this vote? Thanks for your help. LawrenceTrevallion 01:09, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the information. LawrenceTrevallion 06:18, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
So uh... Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-08-06 theopedia/all should be deleted because... well... uh, just read it to find out why. ;) -- The Prophet Wizard of the Cray on Cake 22:41, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
On 12 August 2006, I opened a mediation case over a dispute over where the Homerun article should redirect to.
On 25 August 2006, although no mediation had taken place, CQJ closed the case. CQJ reasoned that the "situation seems to be well at hand" and the issue has somewhat died off". He also posted that a "neutral third party", Richardshusr, was working on the dispute.
The issue appeared to have somewhat died off because I was taking a Wikibreak from 15-31 August due to stress caused by on-wiki issues. In addition, when informing me that the case had been closed, Richardshusr stated that he "disagreed with...the mediator's characterization of [him] as a neutral third party" because he "has an opinion and has expressed it in the vote". [6]
As I have returned from my break, and wish to continue mediation, how do I re-open the case, or request the case be re-opened?
-- J.L.W.S. The Special One 13:45, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
~Kylu ( u| t) 01:55, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
I had suspended participation in the MedCab after the recent Israel-Lebanon ArbCom case was started, as I was involved as a mediator in the pre-ArbCom mediation case. In the meantime I was finishing some cases and doing mediation on my own behalf without associating with MedCab, and generally have dealt with my backlog. Since the ArbCom case was closed and the ArbCom resolution did not consider me guilty in the case, I'm thinking about whether I should return to participation in the MedCab.
I would like to see a more detailed review of my actions by MedCab members, especially the opinions and criticism about the related case, advices on how I could improve (besides being more careful, I've got it already), and generally opinions on whether I have been doing acceptable/inacceptable job with MedCab and whether I would be appropriate/not as a mediator. CP/M comm 21:14, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Okie-dokie. Guess that means all the popular people like you, so you get to livemediate. :) ~Kylu (
u|
t)
22:45, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
While I'm grateful to Wissahickon Creek for mediating in this case, I'm unhappy with the procedure that was followed:
As far as I can tell, this is Wissahickon Creek's first mediation, and is a new user (account created 22 October, but maybe s/he was editing under another username before). Could another mediator take a look at this and see if further action is warranted? Thank you. --Akhilleus ( talk) 19:40, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
[for sensitive categories:] Try to limit the number of categories to what is most essential about this person, something in the vein of: "give me 4 or 5 words that best characterize this person."
While I can't speak for all the coordinators nor for all the cabal, it is my personal opinion that Wissahickon Creek's actions are detrimental to the purpose of arriving at a consensus in this debate. I would suggest he read Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Suggestions for mediators and note that mediators never give decisions or issue decrees. The goal is to create a compromise that all parties can agree to, not to make some arbitrary decision that they must abide by. I must echo the concerns brought forward by Josiah Rowe on Wissahickon Creek's talk page.
I would ask that Wissahickon Creek no longer mediate this case and instead observe some mediations in progress for a time until he has a better grasp of Wikipedia's Mediation Cabal, and indeed mediation itself. -- Keitei ( talk) 17:40, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
No. Even if some guys here want to impose a POV there, I still believe the compromise solution was given. Even the editor that seems not happy that I refused his POV has accepted the fact that he's trying to impose a blatant POV there. All other editors have agreed that the presented solution represents the best solution for Alexander article. Just because I don't accept blatant POV doensn't mean I haven't reached a good solution. I suggest other editors to get used with NPOV statements before trying to have a mediation process there. Otherwise they will impose and push their POV forever. They don't try to reach a compromise, can't you see them? They are trying to impose a blatant POV. I will mediate this case until this compromise solution will be accepted, as other editors accepted so far. -- Wissahickon Creek talk 18:19, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
I have to say, I question the suitability of an editor with less than 150 edits as a mediator. I think perhaps another mediator should look over this case. -- Lord Deskana ( talk) 18:37, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
I would like again to request, as politely as I can, that Wissahickon Creek recuse himself. I feel that by calling me a POV-pusher, he is de facto no longer a mediator, but a party in the dispute. I would welcome his further participation in the discussion, as I would any editor in good standing, but I do not believe that he is a suitable mediator for this case. Since this is a voluntary process, and I am the one who filed the request for mediation, I believe that it's reasonable for me to ask Wissahickon Creek to bow out. --Akhilleus ( talk) 19:50, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks ~Kylu ( u| t) ! I will welcome any new mediator that will assist me in this mediation process, since I want to learn to mediate as suggested and I will definitely remove any POV from the article. I will support, from the mediator's position, a compromise solution to the article. -- Wissahickon Creek talk 20:22, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
As Wissahickon Creek in the attempt to mediate this case
and as I have received many complaints and requests of recusal from multiple parties (Josiah Rowe, Akhilleus, CaveatLector, NikoSilver), both publicly and in private, and as Wissahickon Creek has not heeded many polite requests that he recuse himself from this case, I hereby ask that he no longer mediate the case on Talk:Alexander the Great, assisting or otherwise. -- Keitei ( talk) 00:49, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Please see the following mediation cabal [7], there has been very minimal interaction by the mediator on this. The mediator never responded or really discussed anything. The mediator made two suggestions and then it appears the mediator has been away for a while. I would like to sincerely request for another mediator who will be more active in participating and discussing in this. Elalan 14:30, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia_talk:Mediation_Cabal#Another_mediator_needed:
Mediator Gzkn needs a bit of help, since he's off-clock from the disputants and it seems to flame up when he's not around.
He's requesting help from US/Canada timezones, preferably. ~Kylu ( u| t) 05:30, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
I've been the target of some accusations over at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006- 11- 25 Email Harrassment over a disagreement about a fact posted on here. The user who posted it seems to have vanished entirely, but for my own comfort I would like to have a Mediator take a look and confirm that these claims are untrue. Whenever you have time. Thanks. -- Masamage 01:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-11-28 Image:Ann Coulter.jpg can be removed, the situation sorted itself out. I am the one who made the request. -- Oden 14:20, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
This one is stalled out and people are discouraged. This mediation affects about 100 articles. Much posting from conflicting parties but no consensus. Mediator has been almost completely absent. Request for new mediator. -- Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦ ♫ 21:05, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
See also: Wikipedia_talk:Mediation_Cabal#Mediator_never_turned_up -- Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦ ♫ 21:07, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
I am retiring after cleaning up any cases left. G eo. 02:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
This is surely an example of aggressive canvassing of pro-republican users to gain support for use of "Volunteer" when describing IRA members: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/DownDaRoad. Logica 00:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
"An arbitrator clarified the position: "Briefly, I think a reasonable amount of communication about issues is fine. Aggressive propaganda campaigns are not. The difference lies in the disruption involved. If what is happening is getting everyone upset then it is a problem. Often the dividing line is crossed when you are contacting a number of people who do not ordinarily edit the disputed article.""
Logica 01:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
See also:
Image:CabaleAuFondDuJardin.jpg,
Image:CabaleMasquee.jpg,
Image:CabaleNoNeko-couleur-Rama.jpg
Doesn't have to do with anything, just figured it was funny. n.n (No, this isn't the kind of edit I make all day.) ~Kylu (
u|
t)
05:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi, can I request help in having a mediation for the article Janjua talk page. A user using sock puppets keeps deleting sourced material. Can you help in resolving the dispute on the talk page which is escalating into abuse after the user in question has been answered with references and sources. I fear this may require an arb com eventually..... Thanks for the help in anticipation and happy holidays in the mean time :-) -- Raja 17:43, 21 December 2006 (UTC)