Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2 01 2006 Kent Hovind
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Request for cabal mediation
[edit] Request Information
- Request made by: Icj tlc 20:23, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
- Status: Closed outside of mediation scope --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 04:58, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
- Where is the issue taking place?
- Kent Hovind
- Who's involved?
- user:Jason Gastrich
- user:WarriorScribe
- What's going on?
- Repeated reverting of previous edits.
- What would you like to change about that?
- Honestly, I think Jason Gastrich should be permanently banned from Wikipedia. Since that more than likely won't happen, he should at least be banned for 24 hours and the pages that he frequently edits, Kent Hovind, Mark K. Bilbo, should be protected against any further edits by him. He has repeatedly deleted/altered comments posted by other editors on numerous talk pages and frequently attacks anyone that doesn't agree with his POV. He tends to run to admin whenever he feels "trolled", crticized, or attacked. He has made these accusations many times against WarriorScribe and Mark K Bilbo.
- If you'd prefer we work discreetly, how can we reach you?
- crsmith@lsi.fnf.com
[edit] Comments by others
The case seems to be related to Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/27_12_2005_Mark_K._Bilbo --Fasten 21:51, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Mediator response
[edit] Notes
Preliminary response: The case seems to be related to Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/27_12_2005_Mark_K._Bilbo --Fasten 21:51, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
See also: Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#January_4.2C_2006 --Fasten 14:07, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Proposal
This is indeed the same case. Case closed.
[edit] Reply of the submitter
No it's not. Mark K. Bilbo and Kent Hovind are 2 seperate people that each have their own article in Wikipedia. What Jason Gastrich is doing to Bilbo's article he is doing at Hovind's article. This is not the same case. It is a different case. Apparantly, based on an email conversation with this mediator, I have a bad attitude and that's why an agreement can't be made. I've never editted either of these pages. (Bilbo or Hovind) The dispute of these pages do not involve me. My issue with Jason, is just that, my issue with Jason, which is being handled at the moment. That does not resolve the issue that Jason is continuing to revert edits to the Hovind article, which this case is supposed to be mediating and the Bilbo case which another case is mediating. He is also continuing to push his POV, which has not been addressed by either mediator. Neither of the mediators are giving me much faith in WikiPedia at this time. But I'm glad you decided to close the case while there is still no resolution. Don't quit your day job! Icj tlc 18:33, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Apparantly, based on an email conversation with this mediator, I have a bad attitude and that's why an agreement can't be made.
- As this is a personal accusation towards me I resign this case. I do not understand the accusation, however. The problem in question apparently lies outside wikipedia. I cannot disclose details as they have been communicated in private emails. --Fasten 20:32, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
-
- I apologize if you took offense to what I said. I have a bad habit of not composing messages properly at times. It was meant to be a (sarcastic) observation of the mediation process in general. The debate was not between Jason Gastrich and myself in regards to this article. Jason and I do have issues that he has taken outside of WikiPedia, but that is being handled at this time. The article itself has cooled down and has not been altered by either participant reported to the Cabal for several days. You did no mediation in this case. You excused it with no other resolution than, "This is indeed the same case" as Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/27_12_2005_Mark_K._Bilbo. It was pointed out to you, by myself and another WikiPedian that these are not the same cases. They are 2 different articles with 2 different subjects. That the contributing (and debating) editors for both articles in question are the same persons does not warrant your dismisall. In the Bilbo case, Jason was trying to push his POV by including defaming statements and quotations from UseNet which aren't allowed in WikiPedia. In the Hovind article, he was deleting verifiable critiques of his personal hero. Bonaparte has in fact "come through" and issued a statement regarding the Bilbo article. He has vindicated himself in my eyes. Icj tlc 22:53, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Restart of mediation case
[edit] Mediator reassignment: Nicholas Turnbull
Based on the request of User:Icj tlc and that a cursory evaluation shows that although the cases are indeed related, they do appear to be separate disputes (to me at least) and it would not seem to hurt to give this case a run-through, I'm reopening this case. I will be the mediator for this case. Icj tlc is warned that any further incivility from him relating to this mediation request to a member of the Mediation Cabal team will result in this case being closed. I will perform a full evaluation on this matter within three days or so and publish it here. Best regards, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 04:42, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Mediator evaluation
From User:Icj tlc:
- Well Gastrich ruined my break by calling my church to report to my pastor, aka Dad, that I am harrasing a "Minister" over the Internet. Not sure what to do anymore. Might be going on a WikiVacation soon. It's one thing for the weasel to show his lack of intelligence here on WikiPedia, it's another thing completely for him to...I honestly don't know what to call it. Harrassment, stalking? Uh oh, I'm starting to sound like him now! Anywho, I would appreciate any advice on my talk page. Icj tlc 01:39, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Since this dispute (and, indeed, the Mark K. Bilbo issue also) gravitates around the Jason Gastrich/Icj tlc conflict, the above message would appear to indicate a state of affairs outside the scope of mediation based on this statement by Icj tlc. This message above, in addition to the incivility demonstrated by Icj tlc towards a Mediation Cabal mediator, also brings this request for mediation into questionable faith. These issues, regardless of their merits, indicate that this case is not one where the assistance of an informal mediator is possible. The Mediation Cabal cannot deal with disciplinary issues, and can only assist where two parties exist who are willing to attempt mutual negotiation to produce agreement. If the statement written by Icj tlc above is indeed true, this case should be brought to the Arbitration Committee; indeed, if a real issue of harassment does exist perpetrated by either party, the affected party should report the matter to his/her local police. As a consequence I am hereby marking this case closed. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 04:55, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
