Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal: Difference between revisions

New sections at bottom, please.

Archives
2005 2006 Jan - May 2006 May - Jul 2006 Aug - Dec 2007 Jan - Feb 2007 Mar - Apr

Should there be something added to the new requests "form" where the people in the "Involved Parties" section agree to be mediated? I'm seeing stuff here in which only 1 person even knows that a case has been filed here. When a mediator picks it up, only to realize that no one even knew that the case had been opened, it becomes really irritating. So, could there be a section specifying to agree or not agree? Diez2 16:33, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Argh, you're supposed to go to the page in question, and try and be sane. There's at least 2 different approaches to mediation. One is done by Medcom, another is done by Medcab. These two approaches should be as different as possible, so that should one system fail, the other system won't possibly be able to fail in the same way. --Kim Bruning 16:43, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um... How does this comment relate? Diez2 16:53, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Diez2, I fully appreciate that you prefer to mediate on the basis the disputants have formally agreed to be mediated, however, not all mediators (including me) prefer this approach. Personally, I usually just inform the parties that I'm the mediator for their case and move forwards from there. Accordingly, I would prefer if the standard template wasn't altered. Thanks, Addhoc 16:57, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's very informal around here, so you can approach it at your discretion. You could go to the talk page of the article in question and provide an outside perspective to help mediate the dispute. You can contact the parties listed and ask them their view of the dispute. You could create a section on the case page for participants to sign acknowledging they accept your assistance as an informal mediator. Take some time and review the case, article and talk pages. Then, approach it however you think it will work best given the circumstances. If you're unsure about a particular case, always feel free to ask for advice. Vassyana 17:19, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone help me get this request for mediation setup so it shows up on the main page where mediators can find it. Thank you EnviroGranny 10:22, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-05-05 Sprite (lightning)

It shows up now. It always takes some time, because it's done by a bot. Maybe we should mention this on the project page. — Sebastian 06:15, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Project page updated. Vassyana 09:00, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How do people feel about off-wiki mediation? I personally prefer everything on-wiki where I can see it. There was one mediator who liked to do things on IRC, even though it was considerable inconvenience to the participants scheduling a time to meet. E-mail is more defensible, since the participants might request it for discretion and it is not an inconvenience. However, I would still prefer it only be used when necessary. Thoughts? --Medcabemail 06:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like Medcab to be open to all styles and preferences. The choice of style, of course, is not at the sole discretion of the mediator. I believe that a successful mediation requires a climate of mutual respect between the mediator and each party. To mediators who prefer a certain style I would recommend asking each party if they agree, making it clear that it's perfectly fine if they don't agree - all it means is that they have to wait for another mediator to take the case. — Sebastian 16:50, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hope we can make it clear to mediators that they can suggest on or off-wiki mediation as their personal preference while leaving the actual decision up to the participants. It should also be noted that on-wiki mediation allows for new participants to see and join the discussion in progress. --Medcabemail 17:50, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which can be both good and bad. :-) Btw, Medcabemail is an invalid username. You should change it asap. --Kim Bruning 18:07, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The mediator in this case has gone missing. Could someone pick it up or close it?--agr 10:54, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would you prefer to get a new mediator, or that the case be closed? --McClerk 20:12, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be an ongoing dispute, so i suppose a new mediator is appropriate.--agr 20:34, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am having a dispute with another editor. It is over whether a source is reliable or not. The impact is that the only source for certain contested content in the article is this source.

I want to take it to informal mediation but a precondition is the assumption of good faith and the other editor repeatedly makes it clear that they do not like or respect me and has accused me of trolling the page. So I think an assumption of good faith is gone and that apparently rules out mediation.

I thought about RfC but I am concerned that this will attract attention from people who will prefer not to deal with the detailed but what I think is a solid case for my position.

What direction should I take? --Blue Tie 03:16, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can appeal to a broader community for input by asking at the Village pump, posting a Wikiquette alert, or filing a Request for Comment. --Ideogram 03:24, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Someone started a page for mediation on the Landmark article here [[1]] but it doesn't seem to be showing up as an open case. I just tried to add the template at the top of the talk page but that doesn't seem to have helped. What will? Or is it in the pipeline anyway? DaveApter 21:20, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I now see that it won't show up here until a mediator takes it on and sets the status to 'open'. Sorry. DaveApter 17:52, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've added to the case list so that it will appear on the community portal page. Addhoc 20:05, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is going to produce any result, as both the mediator and the other party involved appear to have halted their involvement. Could this case be closed? TimVickers 21:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since March, I've been involved in a few disputes in articles concerning medieval history, mostly concerning things like footnote density and to some degree actual article content where the user H (formerly known as High in BC) has been involved. The discussions per se I don't have a problem with, but I feel that H has all along relied solely on his own personal conviction and completely ignored any fact discussions or brushed them off as being overly condescending. He has so far been far more adamant about having his opinions and certain problematic (and often ill-informed) edits respected without actually providing much in the way of reasoning, logic and least of all sources to back up his claims. He has been criticized for this by several other users[2][3][4][5][6][7][8] but appears to be largely oblivious to the gist of the criticism and merely keeps repeating himself in conflict after conflict.

By now I feel stalked by H and the impression is that he's automatically siding with whomever I happen to disagree, no matter the motivations (or lack thereof) of any third parties. It was most sorely felt just recently when I insisted that the user Athaenara not reinsert material that I had removed from the article subtlety some time ago. The disputed material was my own contribution and so was the research behind it; in short, I wound up in the completely absurd situation of being forced to provide an explanation as to why I disagreed with my my own contributions without anyone explaining their own stance on the issue. When I explained that most of the content had been rewritten and moved to the more general article entremet or removed entirely because I had gotten more information, all I got was more finger-wagging which was backed up by H who later decided to join the revert war himself[9] but placing the blame squarely on me and claiming that I was going against consensus (which was a moot point since the article had been a one man show for over two years). After that he began rattling the RfC saber on his talkpage, which I find to be extremely tactless coming from someone who is trying to style himself as an impartial peacemaker.

The relevant pages of dispute have so far been:

• Talk:Medieval cuisine#Removing fact-tags – Talk:Medieval cuisine#class imitation, nobility exposed to more foriegn food – Talk:Medieval cuisine#This is a featured article???
• Talk:Black Death (most of the posts between March 27 and 29 April)
• Talk:Subtlety/Archive 1

I'm posting a request here because I feel like H is too eager in cultivating an unwholesome determination to keep me in check without any considering whatsoever of the hard work I've done on topics that no one has written anything on before. I feel like I'm being policed by someone who has absolutely no competence in the topic, but a boatload lot of opinions on how I should interact with people who don't contribute anything of their own and don't provide constructive criticism. He makes no actual content contributions to the related articles but posts a considerable volume of talkpage material that is factually uninformative and consists largely of highly generalized arguments pertaining to citation of etiquette policies and WP:OWN. I believe his behavior towards me is only aggravating these disputes, but I don't feel it's quite the time to file an RfC. I would like to have some help in mediating with H because I fear this is far from over and will keep wasting my own, his and many other people's time without any benefit to the project whatsoever.

Peter ^Isotalo 18:33, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While things are a bit informal around here, I would suggest following the instructions for filing a MedCab request. You are simply more likely to find a volunteer to take the case using that route. We resolve content disputes, and sometimes concerns about another editor's general attitude are a part of that. However, if the main thrust of your concern is another editor's behaviour, this may not be the appropriate venue for you. Please consider the situation and take the appropriate action. If you have any questions, feel free to ask. Vassyana 21:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am hoping to get some assistance with a situation. Because it seems to fall outside the normal scenarios described in the article here, I am hoping for some direction.

• The Situation:There is an ongoing discussion on the Baseball Project talk page. Essentially, the discussion is about what links should and should not be included in articles.
• Some background: Unfortunately, the original poster, as well as a few others, want to focus on me instead of the issue at hand. At least two editors feel that I refuse to engage in open discussion. The reality is, I choose to avoid sporadic discussion located in 30 different places (when avoidable). The original poster continues to push the site link regardless of the discussion status.
• Request: How do I involve the Cabal? The talk page that i have named above is only one of several that have popped up on this issue. I am trying to figure out how to resolve this situation without causing a further ruckus. Again, as you will see by the title of the section, i feel like the two others most closely following that discussion cannot move past my boldness when editing articles. Thanks //Tecmobowl 13:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What would you like to change about the situation, and/or achieve? --Kim Bruning 14:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that some fresh opinions on the matter can help bring some order. It appears that we can not even agree on what the conensus is. A mediator seems like the logical step here; and a MC seems like a good way to go about it. // Tecmobowl 21:49, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is the difference between the two (besides one official), and why do some people go to Cab, while others go to Com? Cool Blue^{talk to me} 01:27, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At MedCab, things tend to be very informal. A wide range of mediation options are used, from working with the case page to talk page mediation to private email correspondence. It depends on the preferences of the participants and volunteers. Generally, an open mediation style is preferred in MedCab, focusing on case page and article talk page mediation. There is no formal membership. Volunteers come and go. Choosing to mediate a case at MedCab is a simple matter of adopting a case. At MedCom, it is formal mediation. There is a standing committee of mediators, including a chairperson. MedCom cases are confidential and often handled off-wiki for discretion and privacy. Joining MedCom requires a nomination that fails if two members of the committee decline. Non-members can only mediate cases with the acceptance of the committee and the participants.

People most likely choose one or the other based on the above differences. Sometimes people will attempt a MedCab case and bring it to formal mediation if the attempt fails. Generally, they are both part of dispute resolution, which offers a wide variety of options. Cheers! Vassyana 17:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone please take a look at the case I'm taking: Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-06-10 Podilsko-Voskresenska Line, and advise me on which way to proceed. I'm finding it increasingly unlikely to reach a compromise, so I'm thinking of forwarding this to medcom, but that would be unpleasant for everyone (to go through it again) so some advice would be appreciated. -- G1ggy ^Talk/_Contribs 22:24, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately I think you got caught up in arguing for your particular compromise proposal. Generally we try to avoid that, although there are no absolute rules on this. If you can get the conversation back on track I recommend you concentrate on keeping the parties talking to each other. Generally I think you should focus on guiding the debate to make sure all relevant points are covered in an organized and constructive manner. You can simply ask the participants to list what they think the issues are, and then step through them point by point, while firmly discouraging tangents with comments like, "let's discuss that later". Of course, there are many approaches to mediation, and I hope other mediators will weigh in on this. --Ideogram 22:36, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It has disappeared form the list, and I think it might have been my fault for not knowing how the bot works. Could someone please confirm and fix? Thanks!--Cerejota 23:43, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see it fine here. --Ideogram 00:51, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is my first case. There is not a whole lot to it. I would like someone to quickly look over it and let me know if I've done right so far. LaraLove^T/_C 18:33, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look over it and leave you a few comments. If you have any questions, feel free to harass me. :o) Vassyana 23:25, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(This reply was written before I read Vassyana's offer, so it may be obsolete now:) I didn't delve deeply into this case, but seeing your point about the policy, it seems that there are two main mediation tasks in this case: (1) educate the party who wants to keep the picture about the policy in a way that they can accept and (2) find out what it is that they're trying to achieve. Often, the same goal can be achieved with other means. Finding the real goals takes a combination of (a) some skills to read between the lines and (b) mutual trust between mediator and party. In my experience, this works better with e-mail than on pages that can be seen by everyone. — Sebastian 23:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Always feel free to toss in your opinions and advice, Sebastian. I am after all only a single subjective person. :) Sebastian has given the advice I be likely to give. You may also want to refer them to m:Resolution:Licensing policy, which makes it clear Foundation policy presumes the exclusion of non-free content and reinforces the fair-use content is a highly restricted option available only by specific exception to the Foundation resolution on Wikipedia. I also want to reinforce Sebastian's point (2). In any mediation, understanding where the parties are coming from and what they hope to achieve can be critical. Don't be afraid to ask involved parties a lot of questions. Unless you really only need a specific response from a single participant, I would personally recommend that you try to present questions to all or most of the parties. While getting clarification on a position from a single user may be the primary need, it is often helpful to know where the other participants stand on the same issue. Cheers! Vassyana 00:03, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nacho_Vidal and its discussion page. I put a lot of references in that article as it was totally lacking them, and the source of the references is Nacho Vidal himself in interviews and the like. There's a problem with a wikipedia user. In one of the interviews with Nacho Vidal, he's asked how big his penis is, and he says it's 27 cm (around 11) inches, so I listed it and listed the reference too of course. However, there's a Wikipedia user who keeps deleting the reference and listing another size he assumes Nacho Vidal's penis is because "it doesn't seem to him that it could be that big because it doesn't look to him as big as someone else's... etc". That user keeps deleting the reference and the accurate info that comes from the reference and listing unaccurate info invented by him/herlsef, of course not listing any references. I've tried to explain and talk to him/her etc, but it seems like there's no way, he/she won't listen, so this article and this matter need help. Please visit it and its discussion page for more info. Thank you very much.Britnii 19:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While things are a bit informal around here, I would suggest following the instructions for filing a MedCab request. You are simply more likely to find a volunteer to take the case using that route. We resolve content disputes, and sometimes concerns about another editor's general attitude are a part of that. However, if the main thrust of your concern is another editor's behaviour, this may not be the appropriate venue for you. Please consider the situation and take the appropriate action. If you have any questions, feel free to ask. — Sebastian 22:48, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:KieferSkunk is constantly campaigning to change the page even though he'd agreed to a compromise. He says, "Okay", abides by the decision, then tries to foist his ideas again. It's like a brick wall. His idea that mentioning the scoring in Pac-Man somehow makes it a "strategy guide" - while adding strategy ideas of his own in past edits - is the height of hypocrisy and bossiness. JAF1970 21:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see your case is new. Please be patient. A volunteer will adopt your case. Also, please comment on the content, not the contributor. Cheers! Vassyana 21:54, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. This case has been open for more than a week now, with little to no comment by any mediators. JAF seems to have stopped arguing with virtually everyone on the subject, and I've since archived the dispute threads in Talk:Pac-Man Championship Edition to try to focus the discussions there back on the article content. It appears that the people who've initially responded to this case have gone on vacation.

Could we either get a followup from another mediator on this, or close the case at this point? — KieferSkunk (talk) — 03:14, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I must say I'm still really disappointed in the lack of response on this issue. We've informally closed it because nobody on MedCab did anything about it. :( — KieferSkunk (talk) — 18:35, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I'm looking for some feedback and suggestions on dispute resolution. I've therefore put myself up for Wikipedia:Editor review/TimVickers and was wondering if anybody here could comment, as the review centers on areas this project will be familiar with. Tim Vickers 20:43, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I feel my comments on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zeitgeist the Movie have been totally ignored by the closing admin. I feel wikipedia should try to work via consensus, and not via massive voting. Unfortunately, a call for meatpuppets was made for the keep, confusing the issue. Arguments of mine and others have not been adequately treated by the other editors. How can this be consensus?

I would welcome any help or advice. — Xiutwel ♫☻♥♪ (talk) 11:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried Wikipedia:Deletion review? Addhoc 13:14, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, not yet; I would like to be well prepared, if that is the way to proceed. Am I correct that there is consensus that deletion should be decided by consensus rather than the closing admins personal opinion? Could you please take a look at the discussion? I will quote some of the arguments for keep here, you can see they have not been replied to very well. — Xiutwel ♫☻♥♪ (talk) 17:12, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maxamegolon2000 proposed deletion: the article lacks any information asserting that the film is at all notable.

I was tipped to see the movie, in the Netherlands by a friend of mine who works at a bank. We can debate for ages whether it is notable; I can assert it is being noted. — Xiutwel

The reason I started the article is because everywhere I went on the Net I seemed to come across mentions of it and mini reviews of it, and I ended up watching the movie. I then came to wikipedia to read about the movie and discovered there wasn't an article. This suprised me greatly. So.... I started an article. I must say I find these arguments about notability a little pedantic. Just because the movie hasn't reached the COMMERCIAL sector yet in terms of reviews, it doesn't mean it hasn't achieved notablity. Vexorg 17:12, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Give it time to improveMark E 16:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Keep. Christ, guys, though I agree I'm not terribly convinced of notability at this point, deleting an article after a scant five days, while under construction, smacks of WP:BITE and is borderline incivility. Give the editor a chance to finish the article. If after time it is obvious that the article has not improved, renominate. Evouga 06:05, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Similarly, it is not our job to prove this documentary wrong or misguided, just to describe its existence and its consequences as much independently as possible. Xiutwel (talk) 11:02, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

comment: why do you need this article to be deleted for about a year, and only have it undeleted then? What purpose would that serve? The "big deal" is: all that time wikipedia editors would not be able to contribute to the article. We would have to start from scratch then. Please tell me, why would you want us to waste that time? Please see: Disagreements should be resolved through consensus-based discussion, rather than through tightly sticking to rules and procedures. WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY And also: WP:NOTCENSORED. — Xiutwel (talk) 10:35, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

reliable sources: currently, the only reliable sources are unfortunately the primary sources of the video and the maker's website. This is acceptable, though it is undesirable. Nonetheless I feel an article can be written which is helpful to visitors and looks good on wikipedia. And please remember: WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY, the guidelines are a tool to reach consensus more easily, not to be used in stead of reaching consensus. Xiutwel

I guess notability will be established sooner rather than later. — Xiutwel (talk) 18:47, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

1. comment (keep) We are clearly not reaching consensus on deletion at all. There are 2 guidelines at stake:

* notability: since the film is very new, notability cannot yet be established by reliable sources, which is understandable. Considering the interest in this deletion page, and the vast amount of bloggers talking about such a new film, I would assume that notability will be a matter of time, as it was with Loose Change. It would seem counterproductive to delete for this aspect.

* reliable sources: currently, the only reliable sources are unfortunately the primary sources of the video and the maker's website. This is acceptable, though it is undesirable. Nonetheless I feel an article can be written which is helpful to visitors and looks good on wikipedia. And please remember: WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY, the guidelines are a tool to reach consensus more easily, not to be used in stead of reaching consensus. "Disagreements should be resolved through consensus-based discussion, rather than through tightly sticking to rules and procedures."Image:Smile-tpvgames.gif — Xiutwel (talk) 08:34, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

All of your provided keep arguments are essentially "You're deleting it too soon," "lots of people are talking about it on the internet," "it will be notable eventually," "there was no consensus to delete," or the first one, "It is notable." Allow me to deal with these one by one:
1. The article was given five days from the opening of the AFD. This is Wikipedia standard for both AFDs and prods. Hundreds upon hundreds of articles are deleted through these procedures every week, and the procedure has been largely unchanged for years, and it won't change because of one article. If it seems too fast, go to deletion review, or try and change the policy on deletions.
2. No matter how many people are talking about it, until it has appeared in reliable sources, it's not notable.
3. Notability must precede article creation. Not everything becomes notable one day, and for every internet phenomenon there are at least a thousand flops.
4. While there was not a majority decision to delete, there was clearly a consensus on the AFD that the subject did not pass muster under the notability guideline, and further there is a long standing Wikipedia-wide consensus that non-notable topics should not have articles.
5. Unfortunately, notability is very clearly defined on Wikipedia, so no, this was not notable.
Further, given the massive amount of sock or meatpuppetry on that AFD, vote counting was meaningless. All of the arguments presented for keeping the article were essentially asking Wikipedians to temporarily suspend enforcement of guidelines and long standing community-wide consensus on what deserves an article. The ignore all rules argument you presented on another talk page is further irrelevent, as this policy exists in such cases where enforcing a rule would not fulfill the spirit of said rule. But enforcing WP:N here does exactly what it was meant to do, prevent non-notable topics from having their own articles. Someguy1221, signed out 20:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Take this to Wikipedia:Deletion review, please. I don't think we deal with this sort of thing. Giggy _U^CP 05:08, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, well, we do help insofar as we help people sort out how to do things. We could help Xiutwel submit a deletion review, or advise them on the wisdom of doing so. Or perhaps Xiutwel could drop by Wikipedia:Editor assistance if things are getting too busy at the mediation cabal, today. --Kim Bruning 15:05, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That, and things with contentious notability are often fairly interesting, so now I got to watch a movie I hadn't seen before. So Xiutwel managed to make one person happy by posting here, at least. O:-) --Kim Bruning 15:32, 17 July 2007 (UTC) "Every downside has an upside" -- Johan Cruyff (translated)[reply]

♥ Hoi Kim, dat is fijn om te horen / that is nice to hear. I think I will not opt for DRV, since too many editors seem convinced that there should be no other criterion for notability EVER than the attention of a single figure of authority aka RS. I would like to undertake a mission in consensus-building. It is my belief that Wikipedia can be at its best when editors cooperate instead of war, and that for this it is important to try to reach consensus. I define consensus as: "all (or most) editors agree to disagree and to abide a certain outcome, even while they personally feel this was not the best option. However, considering the others' viewpoints, this is the best attainable compromise." I often do not see any effort on the part of a majority viewpoint to reach consensus. Especially in the Zeitgeist Afd I think the community is fooling itsself. I am sad with the outcome, not so much because I did not get my way, but more because the wikipedia consensus model is failing in contentious subjects; I believe the consequence will be that (a) the information on wikipedia is biased toward potentially naive majority viewpoints, excluding minority views NPOV and (b) that tremendous amounts of editor energy are wasted on debates which do not result in consensus solutions, but in editors walking away in despair and the discussions starting over and over again. I will now ask the article to be userfied, and would welcome suggestions on how to bring up my need for consensus-building regarding these subjects. A DRV could function as an exercise, (but I doubt that would be wise). — Xiutwel ♫☻♥♪ (talk) 10:48, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have not found very clear rules on what is and is not allowed in Userspace, but it would seem logical to me to work on an article in userspace till it meats wikipedia standards? However, Krimpet initially refused^{http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AKrimpet&diff=145759763&oldid=145751830}. What guidelines apply here? — Xiutwel ♫☻♥♪ (talk) 21:06, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I now have the article in my mail, so I'm happy; the guidelines now say it should not be userfied indefinitely, but could it be userfied for a certain period in order to improve it? — Xiutwel ♫☻♥♪ (talk) 10:34, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some additional eyes and assistance would be welcome on the Purgatory and Baltic states cases. Thanks!! Vassyana 05:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I nominated the page for speedy deletion as it met the criteria, one of the many people editing deleted my nomination. What should I do? 86.135.149.77 01:56, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A group of editors/administrators dominate the circumcision topic. They are (save Jakew) are motivated by religious beliefs, rather than honest presentation/scholarly pursuit of the Topic.

The Cabal controls all content, leading to gross omission and misrepresentation of relevant fact, and repetitive text of potential preventative benefits.

Please advise.

Might it be better to just delete the Topic? The Cabal is quite persistant and pervasive.TipPt 20:15, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You could organize a request for comment on article content.--Addhoc 21:55, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With the various failed attempts at dispute resolution (just in TipPt's contribs I see three or four article RFCs on related topics, an apparently rejected mediation attempt, the MedCab case, and so on), TipPt, you might want to consider arbitration if you feel there's user conduct issues to be dealt with. Be prepared to demonstrate your claims of misconduct, however, and recognize that the ArbCom will likely evaluate all participants in that mess. Unfortunately, the topic draws a lot of warriors from all sides, and is always going to be a battleground. Deleting it is definitely not the right answer, however. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 22:24, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: TipPt is currently blocked for a week for recurring issues with his participation in the dispute and the posting here.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 22:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I visited this page tonight... Arborsculpture and noticed the mediation box? Has a form and request been sent? I'm not familiar enough to tell. But I have the expertise to chime-in on the topic, if there is a problem. I agree that the book and term "Arborsculpture" are very limited in culture, but it's an actual art that does not have a name, and probably should have a name. I added a half dozen or so comments on the page. If it went to mediation, I was hoping that my comments could be considered. Thanks.Mdvaden 04:02, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the box as a case does not seem to have been submitted. If there are questions about whether this is a neologism or a notable concept, it should probably be handled through normal consensus by soliciting comments or holding a deletion discussion. Vassyana 05:33, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Impeach Bush Case is still in the Needs Mediator bin, despite the closed tag on it. Is the trusty bot down? Dagomar 05:34, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, the bot has a disabled notice on the user page. Addhoc 15:09, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The bot operator and a user with a potential fix have been contacted. Please be patient while the problem is resolved. Thanks! Vassyana 18:18, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I jus wanted to make sure that you guys were aware that the bot appeared to be down. No hurry. Dagomar 00:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An editor under the name "Sennen Goroshi" is continuously editing the article Heart Corporation (my company) to include details about my private life in public, as well as making slanderous comments in an attempt to discredit my public image in the business. I find it to be very serious but this user does not correspond with me on it despite requests. Before making a formal request for arbitration, I ask for help by someone in the Cabal to mediate this issue. Smoove K 07:40, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]