Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Complaints/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This 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.
Archive
Archives
edit

Contents

Mediator does not respond

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 also have a mediation request currently up for several days which has gone ignored. Pacian 06:42, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


Intimidation of the Mediator

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)


Non-neutral Mediator and harassment case

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)

RFC

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)

Hm, yes, the occurence of events there does seem quite confusing. The Mediation Cabal is currently undergoing a slow transition to a more community-driven form of mediation, so that may have led to some confusion on the part of the mediator. However, the archival of the relevant discussion does look a tad drastic. I will speak with Ideogram concerning this to see if he can clarify what happened exactly. Cowman109Talk 21:38, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
I am of course new to mediating and I welcome your guidance. I have been working closely with two other mediators, jbolden1517Talk, and Kcordina Talk .
In my first case, jbolden recommended I clean up the talk page here, and I assumed that advice would apply to any other talk page I encountered that was overly long.
I also approached that case quite gingerly here. In response Kcordina posted this; as I took on more cases I started being more assertive.
I have been applying these two bits of advice in every case I have taken since then, and this is the first time anyone has complained.
Before I address RandomP's points individually, I would like to ask all parties concerned to assume good faith. I think this is at the heart of the misunderstanding.
I thought that asking participants to refrain from editing was standard procedure when entering an edit war. Although RandomP later objected to my use of the term it was the term used in the filing and upon my arrival I observed that the last edit was less than a day old.
My exact wording was:
  • I have no power and cannot give orders. Should you be unable to reach a compromise by your own efforts (with my guidance) you will have to move to a higher form of dispute resolution. However, any party that does not show a good faith effort to solve the problem here will be at a disadvantage in later stages
I honestly did not see this as a threat. I saw it as a simple statement of fact that hopefully would motivate all participants to cooperate.
I actually made two attempts to clarify, here and here.
At this point RandomP posted this.
Please note the following:
  • RandomP apparently wanted to argue over the use of the term edit war.
  • RandomP assumed I was threatening him, a failure to assume my good faith.
  • I certainly should have explained better why formal Mediation and the Arbitration Committe look favorably on parties that make a good faith effort to resolve disputes through informal mediation, with a link to the appropriate policy.
  • RandomP tried to quote policy at me, which I interpreted as trying to tell me how to do my job.
  • RandomP asked me to justify my recommendation, innocuous enough by itself but in combination with the above it seemed like a further attempt to tell me how to do my job.
  • RandomP offered his opinion that two of my statements "might be unhelpful things to say". This was certainly an attempt to tell me how to do my job.
In response I posted this. I admit it seems blunt and impatient, but I was trying to assert control by exercising the only power I have; the right to leave. I hope you agree that in order to mediate I must be able to have some control. But there are many people who just don't like being controlled.
At this point I already knew that RandomP did not feel there was a problem there worthy of mediation. He felt that since his opponent "stormed off" the conflict was over. I observed that his opponent had been gone less than a day and counseled him to be patient but he did not agree. So I simply forced the issue by offering to leave. RandomP accepted my offer. My closing comment was this. Short, but I don't quite see how it can be characterized as "storming off".
Fundamentally if RandomP doesn't want to follow the recommendations of a mediator, then there can be no mediation. The mediator is supposed to be a neutral party able to advise both sides. If one (or both) of the sides turns it into an argument with the mediator then another mediator will have to be brought in (ad infinitum ...).
It was quite clear that RandomP did not feel my presence was necessary, so I tried to waste the minimum amount of time in the situation possible.
Please note that I am still in contact with the requestor of the mediation and working to address his concerns here.
Cowman has made some recommendations on my talk page already which I appreciate and will follow.
I apologize for any mistakes I have made and any resulting misunderstanding. Ideogram 23:15, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Whoa. Please let me just ask that if you read Ideogram's summaries of what I allegedly said, you also check his link to what I actually said.
As for my part, I should have made clearer that the summary above was how things seemed to me, not necessarily what I thought was really intended at the other end.
RandomP 11:21, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Cases left behind

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. Cowman109Talk 22:10, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

The first two seem to be fine (the first one is based on whether an AFD fails or not), but I put the bottom four back in the cases in need of mediators section. Cowman109Talk 22:21, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
And the cases are all being worked on by someone, now. That issue is done with. Cowman109Talk 22:25, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-07-28_UN_resolutions_concerning_Israel_and_Palestine has never been addressed by a mediator despite the request three days ago. FightCancer 11:53, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
    Hm, it appears that the case was never put into the new cases category, thus never listing it in the case list. I will re-add that so it should appear on the list. Cowman109Talk 15:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
    Thanks. In the future, should I be the one to put the case into the new cases category if I request mediation? FightCancer 18:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
    At the moment we have a bot automatically adding cases to the case page if they are in the proper category. It should appear on the case page within 10 minutes usually - I think you accidentally removed the category when you were requesting for help, so it hopefully shouldn't be a problem in the future. Cowman109Talk 18:47, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-07-19 Block Enthusiasts

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)

It's really not a medcab situation, I'd actually suggest visiting WP:AN/I instead. Please feel free to assist the user in this, but if they would like to talk to an admin, they're free to leave a message on my talk page. ~Kylu (u|t) 09:13, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Hm, yes. The medcab can't really handle user conduct and administrator issues as we are an informal process (and thus have no authority). Simply suggesting they go to WP:ANI would be best. Also, telling him that sending an e-mail to the blocking administrator may work as well. Cowman109Talk 15:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. Another medcab (BarryC) has already responded to the user requesting mediation and I'll let them handle it. Thanks again :p SynergeticMaggot 17:48, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
It's actually a sock of User:PoolGuy, so the page is eligible for deletion per {{db-banned}}. Stifle (talk) 23:30, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Closing cases

How do I close a case, or is this done by someone else? SynergeticMaggot 23:27, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, we're currently still in a bot testing phase, so all you have to do is change the category of the case page to Category:Wikipedia Medcab closed cases instead of Category:Wikipedia Medcab open cases. Then within 10 minutes the bot should remove it from the case list and it will remain in the category. We're still trying to figure out what to do with future archiving. Cowman109Talk 00:12, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. I've just been noticing that there are alot of cases still open, with no current activity, or the participants have left mediation behind. I've closed a few cases already and I just wanted others to know I'm doing it, just in case. SynergeticMaggot 18:34, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
It seems to me that are a number of cases that need to be closed, or at least have their bells rang to see if people are still involved. Can I perhaps volunteer to do a case audit for this purpose? Also, I noticed that the list of cases needing mediators is growing again... perhaps we can contact active mediators who don't currently have cases and ask if they'd be willing to take one? --Aguerriero (talk) 22:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
The list of new cases often fluxuates - there shouldn't be too much to worry about that. But by all means, feel free to find which of the open cases have not seen activity in some time; closing them would help clear things up a bit, though make sure that the participants are actually inactive and that they are fine with the case being closed. Cowman109Talk 22:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
We could continue to archive cases by hand, it'd give us something to do. :) (Kylu@Work) 207.145.133.34 22:33, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Abandoned Case

[[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)

This is a complete misrepresentation of what is happening there. --Ideogram 01:51, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
It appears that 3 days ago the one who volunteered to take the case responded on the talk page of the article, so I don't think it has been abandoned persay (diff). It seems like a breakdown in communication. I would just recommend a fresh start, as there is already way too much focus on contributers instead of content in that case - creating a new section and stating what needs to be done may be the thing to do there, as was done in the diff above. Perhaps an archival of the past debate that is not discussing how to improve the article may be in order, as well. Cowman109Talk 01:58, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Either the current mediator needs to be less sporadic in his involvement, or a new mediator is required. - MSTCrow 02:53, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
If you'd like another mediator to look at the case, it's probably best to request one at Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal and see if anyone's interested. Cowman109Talk 03:57, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-07-25 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict

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)

Just to clarify the situation, the thing I edited in the comment was a quote from policy. It was incomplete and I restored it to the full paragraph, and said that in the comments. I just didn't expect the editor would consider that wrong. However, I can quit the case if you want. CP/M comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 17:03, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
In the interest of maintaining a positive environment, that would probably be best. If disputants have issues with someone attempting to mediate a dispute, things could go in the wrong direction. Cowman109Talk 17:19, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree that mantaining a positive environment must be the foremost but it makes a mockery of the entire process of moderation if the people are not willing to accept the reasoned opinions of the moderators. Barberio has done a serious breach of assuming good faith, and has hereby poisoned any possible process regarding this matter in the moderation cabal. We must escalate, as the moderation process has obviously failed. Since I didn't raise the request for moderation, I will not take it ArbCom myself, but are indeed an interested party and will support any attempt to raise it.
The serious nature of the charges and accussations against the moderator, I think are patently false and ill-willed and Barbeiro must aplogize and retract them.
Mediation cannot work if one of the sides is not willing to accept adverse opinions from moderators. When a side is wrong, I belive it is the responsibility of a moderator to say so: it is implicit that at the end of the process, having seen the evidence, a moderator will arrive to a solution that is not mutually acceptable: that is the whole point of moderation, the two sides couldn't reach agreement and hence need a third party to intervene.
So rather than replace the moderator, I move for the moderation cabal to escalate and move this from the moderator cabal to the next level of conflcit resolution:
It is obvious that at least Barberio is not willing to accept anything but the validation of his position on the part of the moderation cabal and is willing to raise spurios and false charges against a moderator in order to achieve this goal. The only logical and civil step would be to escalate rather than replace a moderator, as the moderation environment is already poisoned by the actions of Barbeiro. He is solely responsible for the lack of success of this process.
I for one will not be happy with any replacement moderator simply because this moderator will already have Barberio's comments as an incentive to rule in his favor.
(And just in case, I am involved in a separate but related moderation case in which the moderators have ruled against me, and I have respect it, because that is why we engage in this process.) --Cerejota 05:41, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
I've refactored your comment slightly for clarity, I hope you don't mind. Just a couple points of note: Happily for us, MedCab is informal mediation and, until such time as we're asked by ArbCom to close a case, we're able to persue it as long as there's at least one willing party. That specific tenet of MedCab has, in my mind, always been a bit ambiguous, but it is nice that it is so as it allows us a bit of freedom to work. The second point is that advancement in dispute resolution (from here, the next "higher" step is normally MedCom or ArbCom) does not actually have to be brought by a MedCab coordinator, but in fact it's preferable for it to be brought by one of the involved parties. If you feel your case is hopeless and that arbitration is your only hope, then you really want to bring a case on WP:RFAr. One caveat, though: In MedCab, we hold dear the desire to bring mediated, amicable solutions to our clients. Once mediation of any stripe fails, and only ArbCom is left, then you do have to realize that at least one (and probably all) parties to Arbitration will walk away with sanctions, restrictions, and possibly worse levied against them. Arbitration is a no-more-chances system that is designed to keep problems from disrupting Wikipedia, and as such ArbCom has no motivation to make sure that the parties end up happy. Please, please try to solve the problem before bringing it to ArbCom. Myself, I'd sooner just avoid the persons and articles who have been hounding me rather than take it to that level. Good luck to you, whatever your choice is, however. ~Kylu (u|t) 05:57, 2 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)

Thanks for taking this case. I hope you'll finish it. Good luck. CP/M comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 23:46, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

May I join?

I would love to help with mediation. So, I would like to know how I can join, and if I can help. Thanks! WikieZach| talk 23:38, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Responding at Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal#May I join? Cowman109Talk 02:15, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Any one home?

I requested mediation a while back, since then nothing much has happened. The Potter's House

Potters house 08:26, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

We're home, we're just busy cookin'. There is a case backlog right now of 2-14 days, so you just have to wait until a mediator is available to take your case. --Aguerriero (talk) 19:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, we're around, but as you can see the backlog has grown a bit. I'm still handling a few cases myself; looking at the open cases, people are still taking cases, but we seem to be getting cases a bit faster than people can handle them at this rate. In your case in particular, the long discussion might also be deterring possible mediators (we can't force people to mediate, of course - it's an informal process). Cowman109Talk 20:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Good question. I also requested mediation here [[5]], but so far no response. Why? Tashtastic 12:57, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

There are a good 20 cases or so that are backlogged, and there don't appear to be enough mediators at this time to handle them. It looks like lots of people are off to school or are on vacation, or something of the sort. But yours has been up for only 4 days - others have been up for about 2 weeks and still haven't had a response, so you're in the same boat, hehe. If you are unhappy with the wait time it might be better to look towards other options such as WP:RFC or WP:VP, as we seem to be short on mediators at this time. Cowman109Talk 14:38, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Request for recussal and suggestion

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:

  • Accountability: the conversations are recorded, dated and timed, diffs can be produced and the conversations made public. This creates an environment of accountability an openess.
  • 'Reliability: it requires a rather large Admin conspiracy to succesfully purge information, and even then we have a record of deletion, which can raise reasonable doubt of improperiety.
  • community-driven: the conversation can be joined by anyone in order to engage the community.

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)

Oh, dear. I must strongly disagree with you. Off-wiki discussion is imperative to mediation procedures. IRC and e-mail are much, much more laid back environments to discuss things in and it allows people to be more openly honest in their beliefs. Is this the sole reason you would like GofG to recuse himself? It would probably be best to speak with him first about this and see what he thinks, but at the moment the mediation cabal is dealing with a heavy backlog, so it would probably take quite some time to get a new informal mediator for your case. Cowman109Talk 20:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
I hear your point, but perhaps you are not giving attention to something (As I admit it was a long post): the problem I had was not the communication per se, but the lack of accountability and the fact that such conversations where not disclosed until I asked. This is not a trivial issue: moderation, even if informal should be based in the trust on the moderator. ANything that could serve the purpose of destroying this trust should be eliminated from the process, or (yuck) made subject to rules to regulate its use. Off wiki methods might be more laid back, but they are also unacountable and wholly secret. Who can trully say what did or didn't happen in a conversation?
To give you an example, a simple disclosure and discussion on off wiki communication, even if the contents where not to be disclosed, wouldn't have led me to ask for recussal. It was the fact that I had to *ask* only after realizing that this was a possibility (because of certain small details that gave me the impression the moderator had knowledge not discussed in the procedding). I felt betrayed, as up until that point I felt I had been fairly treated, even when ruled against on two of my points. After this, I feel like I cannot trust GofG anymore to be a moderator.
Maybe consider this: is being laid back more important to a moderating proceeding than having both sides of a dispute be comfortable and trusting their moderator? Forget the tools for a second and think about the human impact a second. You might still disagree, but you would at least be addressing my main point, not the dressings.--Cerejota 06:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I've looked over the case, and it seems like this is a pure user conduct issue, and perhaps it should be brought up at WP:ANI or brought up in the current arbitration case concerning the Israeli Lebanon conflict at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Israel-Lebanon. This seems to be more of a matter requiring administrator intervention to encourage editors to remain civil to eachother. Cowman109Talk 20:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't think escalation is necessary at this point.--Cerejota 06:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
I think there's something amiss here, and I'll try to quote it the best I can. "The Mediation Cabal is an informal dispute resolution process". With that said, there are those of us that prefer the regimented, strutured approach in some cases, and loose, on-the-fly in others. There are some cases that are in perception of both users, and some cases that are in reality in diffs and links. In some situations, I really don't want to discuss the fact that user X is a nutjob to user Y when user X can see it, and in others, I may want to prod along user A to try to settle his differences with user B over inconsequential issue X which is dragging on an edit war in article Z without influencing every one else in the dispute (particularly because he's the one that either has sense or is being a total nimrod about the entire thing).
Essentially, there are some situations that require the utmost discretion that don't lend themselves to discussion on a talk page. I'm not going to ask G to tell me what he said in his off-wiki communication, because he felt that was the right way to accomplish something with his mediation, and I feel it was within the spirit of what we're trying to accomplish here. If you feel wronged, I apologize, but we are a group of editors working to allow for dispute resolution, and sometimes a dispute can't be resolved transparently and requires a little discretion on our part, and the day that I can't use private methods to contact or discuss a case with either party is the day I'll stop being involved in this process. CQJ 17:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
And in addition to that, I'm sure that everyone involved with the Mediation Cabal has the common sense and decency to maintain the third wall and not cross the line from a mediation to an advocacy role unless a disputant has been a blatant thorn in someone's side and has already checked with one of the coordinators before doing so. I know I read the facts behind every mediation I take for at least 500 contributions on all ends before I even reset the category tag and contact the involved parties, so I've got a pretty decent handle on what's going on from the get-go. If Cowman, Keitei, or Kylu didn't trust someone acting in the Mediation Cabal's name or concept, they'd respectfully ask the editor to stop flaunting it and go do something else. CQJ 17:57, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-08-11 Peoples' Global Action

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)

It is hard to tell if this case is a content dispute or a conduct dispute. Or if it is both. --physicq210 20:07, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Well if things aren't getting anywhere, you could suggest to them that they seek extra opinions from the village pump to see if policy can answer some notes of the dispute. If that doesn't work, you could also suggest they pursue a Request for Arbitration, though they should know that such an action would end up negatively for many of them, as it is focused more on user conduct as opposed to content disputes, but it could determine that certain users may or may not be disrupting dispute resolution processes. The matter looks to be heavily centered around POV, so getting outside, unaffiliated parties to comment may be the best bet in such a case. Cowman109Talk 20:28, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
I'd rather say only on user conduct. For instance, in the recent ILC case ArbCom members clearly stated they will not rule on content issues in the case, only on user behavior. CP/M comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 20:46, 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)

If users are bringing their personal bias into articles, things tend to get heated, and I would recommend arbitration to them as the current situation is otherwise harmful to the encyclopedia. Cowman109Talk 03:50, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Looks really nice. So now the MedCab will establish it place as a method-to-justify-arbitration?
CP/M comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 04:14, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, I followed Cowman109's advice and told them to go to the village pump. However, instead of submitting to ArbCom, I told them that if they failed, they should submit their case to the Mediation Committee first, before dealing with ArbCom. --physicq210 04:23, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
MedCom is even less powerful than MedCab. Well, however, it can take time, so people can cool a bit. I feel slightly discomfortable about all recent MedCab-related discussions. --CP/M comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 04:52, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, making them jump to ArbCom is a bit extreme. --physicq210 04:55, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
It is true that Medcom is in a bit of a slump at the moment, as is evident by the list at WP:RFM having only one assigned case in the last two months and 3 in June. If you still feel that there are possibilities that a third opinion could help settle the dispute, by all means that should be tried, but remember that while arbcom is the end of the line, if you believe that editors' behavior are harming the encyclopedia, WP:RFAR should indeed be looked at. You could always ask an arbcom member if you think what you have could indeed warrant a case (IRC is very handy for that). Cowman109Talk 05:23, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppets and Voting

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)

Well, the vote can't be binding, technically - if they agree to consider it binding, then it certaintly could work if each person agrees to it, but otherwise it may be best to simply look at the contributions of those vote to see if they are new user accounts. If there is reasonable suspicion that someone is trying to influence the vote with sockpuppets, a checkuser request could be filed. Cowman109Talk 01:16, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. LawrenceTrevallion 06:18, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


Need a case page deleted

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 Crayon Cake 22:41, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Baleeted! ~Kylu (u|t) 03:06, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Reopening case (Homerun redirect) that should not have been closed

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)

I opened it for you - for future reference just changing the status box at the top from 'new' or 'closed' to 'open' puts it back on the list of open cases. Cowman109Talk 15:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Sorry for the inconvenience. Might I suggest using a wikibreak tag next time so we don't think you just fell off the collective edge of the earth or got eaten by a wild kangaroo? CQJ 03:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal status update

Please note: there seems to be other problems on the above talkpage. Perhaps a mediator should get involved?

~Kylu (u|t) 01:55, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Review request

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)


Links for review by coordinators, with my commentary (By Kylu):
  • Specifically, Adequacy of mediation this decision refers to CP\M's mediation capabilities. While not a glowing endorsement, I think, it does state that "his performance met the minimum requirements for Wikipedia mediation."
being supported by five Arbitrators, I am of the mind to not question their decision and instead welcome you back into mediation.
  • Specifically, Nature of mediation states, "Mediation is traditionally a process which permits free expression of diverse opinions. For this reason its content is often confidential. Absent bad faith (refusal to address the subjects under discussion or to participate), aggressive expression of opinion is to be expected and ought not be negatively sanctioned. This may include dissatisfaction with the course of mediation."
I'll be blunt on this point. Many editors tend to see MedCab as "lesser" mediation. We're "the step below MedCom" to them. We are "the next rung up the ladder to Arbitration." This is not how I want MedCab to be seen. Here's a secret: There is no inherent reason why MedCab should be "less" than MedCom. MedCom is undergoing a rough time right now, and while some of those reading this may well note that I've been campaigning both on- and off-Wikipedia to support MedCom, to revitalize it, and to increase its productivity, in my eyes there is a little friendly competition involved here. I'd like to see MedCab "beat" MedCom. I want our mediators to be more resourceful, more motivated, and more successful in ending disputes to the satisfaction of all the parties.
If there's a way we can make ArbCom and MedCom absolutely bored and have nothing to do for the rest of the year, simply because we're that damn good, I'd be very, very happy. Here's a secret, guys: Our case page looks awfully full, but if you compare the number of mediations we're performing that end up resolved versus ArbCom (I won't compare to MedCom, since they've been inactive for a bit) we're doing... "eh". We're doing okay. But not stellar. There's a bunch of cases that are all being handled by the same small group of mediators. There's a lot of staleness in some of these cases.
Evidence presented by CP\M for his take on things. This does not, in my opinion, require commentary.
  • Workshop#Assume good faith verbatim: "Wikipedia mediators are usually not trained and are often inexperienced. They may not only fail to do the optimal thing, but may make gross errors. However, they are expected to do their best and presumably do. Wikipedia:Assume good faith mandates a reasonable attempt to work with them during the mediation process. It is not the sole responsibility of the "Mediator" to made a success of the process; forgiving participation in good faith by the users who have a dispute is also required."
Mediation is not about us getting the sides forced together, grumbling as they toil in the saltmines of articles. Mediation is bringing these sides together harmoniously, scraping away the differences and agreeing on policy and points, then they can toil in the saltmines of articles.
There are three sides to mediation that have to be considered: Two of these sides see eachother as "The Enemy" generally. Read the situations in the new cases sometimes. They seem to be more like complaints, attempts to villify the other editor, to prove that they're right and the other person is wrong. Perhaps the first thing we should do is to get the parties to agree to treat eachother as comrades here and explain that each side has to respect the other, or mediation will fail. I feel fairly certain that this is what happened in the Israel-Lebanon mediation. I suppose if anyone is to fault for this, it's me, since I encouraged CP\M to accept the case and show off his mediating ability. A case like "2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict" is perhaps not the best thing to break a mediator in on.
  • Decision (3/0/0)
  • I'm going to Support your rejoining the mediation community. I have faith that you'll continue mediation and learn new and valuable techniques to assist in mediation, and perhaps if this situation comes up again, you'll be our public face to show that yes, in fact, MedCab is capable, competent, and effective. ~Kylu (u|t) 21:57, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Support (lol vote). Having attempted to take over the case after CP\M whatever'd it, I can attest that they were a difficult lot and the outcome doesn't really reflect badly on CP\M. Advice I would give is to try to get disputants agreeing on things (just general advice), and um, stuff. I think really good mediation skills come with practice, so who are we to deny you that practice :] Have fun with mediation! Cheers. --Keitei (talk) 22:19, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I see nothing wrong with you continuing to be a mediator - just of course if you ever feel a case is going in the wrong direction, leaving a note on the medcab talk page asking for assistance before things explode is usually a good direction to go to. What matters the most, in my opinion, is that these people with disputes get listened to in one avenue or another and at least get told where to go from a certain situation, and it appears you did nothing inherently wrong in that case at a glance. I'll look through it more thoroughly when I have more time in case there are any suggestions to be made involving certain points of dispute resolution breakdown that eventually went to arbcom, but remember that there are some incidents that simply can't be mediated when parties are unwilling to budge, and arbcom may indeed be the best for some of these matters. So, uh yeah. Voting is evil. Cowman109Talk 22:39, 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)

Thanks for comments and clearing the things out. Any suggestions on what needs to be taken? CP/M comm 04:17, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

help mediate an open case!

Seriously, though, 2006-10-04 Dubc0724 should be pretty quick if you can get them to just agree to basic wikipedia policies, if not, pass it off to me and I'll toss it on the noticeboard. 2006-10-07 Joe Sharkey probably needs to be validated through OTRS, but 2006-10-04 Derek Acorah looks like it'd be good to warm up on. Just my opinions. ~Kylu (u|t) 04:48, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestions. I'll check and take one of the cases soon. CP/M comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 13:59, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-10-18 Alexander the Great

While I'm grateful to Wissahickon Creek for mediating in this case, I'm unhappy with the procedure that was followed:

  • the mediator rendered a "final decision" after two days.
  • one of the editors named in the dispute has not participated in the mediation, so this decision seems especially quick.
  • the mediator's "final decision" was rendered shortly after I explained that my initial request might have been unclear, so very little time has been given to consider the issues I raised.
  • the mediation was conducted as a straw poll, when what was requested is an discussion of a possible NPOV dispute.
  • the mediator has not made very many comments on the article's talk page.
  • the mediator's interpretation of the NPOV policy seems to be along the lines of "whatever most editors will accept", but as I read the policy, it means we should be relying on the views of published scholarship, even if some WP editors don't like them.

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)

My reply:
  • thank you Akhilleus, please don't be unhappy about the procedure
  • you should know that this is a "formal" mediation, we are just here to help people cool down, provide a third-person view on the matter,...please see more here
  • decision is not especially quick since it has the support of the majority of people is this is the most NPOV solution
  • there is sufficient time, and please take a look here Wikipedia:NPOV_tutorial#Categorisation,

    [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."

  • I shouldn't make too many comments on the article's, I should just mediate, offer you a third opinion, which is exactly what I did
  • if those few scholars are pushing a POV, we should stay with an NPOV version
  • in my opinion you're just advocating a particular point of view, which is POV
  • I welcome any input help, though I think I can handle quite well. You should not bite me :) Thank you. --Wissahickon Creek talk 19:54, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. I'm grateful for all additional input on the dispute, and what I'd like is to get as many people participating in the discussion as possible. That's one reason why I'm asking for another mediator to take a look--the more opinions, the better.
I would appreciate it if you spent more time reading through the talk page and its archives, because the position I'm advocating is based on mainstream scholarship, with plenty of prominent adherents. For instance, I quoted the Oxford Classical Dictionary, which is a standard reference work in the field, and referred to other prominent scholars such as Kenneth Dover and Bruce Thornton. It's simply incorrect to say that I'm talking about a "few scholars"--both Haiduc and I have mentioned many examples of scholarship that support our arguments. We are both familiar with the critical literature, and I think we've illustrated that the overwhelming majority of expert opinion supports our position. Other editors haven't offered anything except their own opinions and a strained interpretation of Bruce Thornton. If you want to say that I'm "just advocating a particular point of view", fine--but that point of view is based on reliable, scholarly sources. And, if I'm reading the policies correctly, it's just that kind of point of view that should guide Wikipedia's content. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:27, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Dear Akhilleus, can you provide more scholars, rather then only 2? It seems like the majority of scholars, with 2 exceptions (or 1 more exactly) support your POV. We can say for the moment that most scholars don't agree with your POV. This is exaclty that kind of point of view that should guide Wikipedia's content. Cheers, Wissahickon Creek talk 20:33, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
If you look at the article's talk page and the talk page archives you'll find plenty of citations and quotes. It's more than 2 scholars. But maybe we should discuss this on the article's talk page, or the mediation case page. Which place? --Akhilleus (talk) 20:38, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
On the article's talk page, of course. --Wissahickon Creek talk 20:45, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Wikkahickon Creek, can you clarify your earlier comment, which currently reads "It seems like the majority of scholars, with 2 exceptions (or 1 more exactly) support your POV. We can say for the moment that most scholars don't agree with your POV." Are you saying that most scholars do or do not support Akhilleus' POV? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:49, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
I responded at Talk:Alexander the Great#List of classical scholars who use the term "homosexuality", but in order not to clutter the talk page with a list, I put the evidence at User:Akhilleus/List of classical scholars who use the term "homosexuality". --Akhilleus (talk) 22:29, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

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)

As the editor who requested mediation, I would also like to ask that Wissahickon Creek recuse himself from this mediation. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:48, 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)

Wissahickon, if the coordinator of the Mediation Cabal says that your actions are detrimental, it would be appropriate to listen. As I noted on your talk page, this is your first attempt at mediation. My concern here is not about the outcome at Alexander the Great — as I mentioned on your talk page, I support the solution Category:Ancient Greek sexuality, with reservations. My concern is for your tone and the way you are representing the Cabal. You appear to have decided that Akhilleus is a POV-pusher, and are dismissing his concerns accordingly. This is neither accurate nor fair. Akhilleus is presenting a case based on extensive scholarship, which you have not acknowledged. Characterizing him as a POV-pusher will not encourage him, or other parties in the discussion, to reach consensus. Consensus is not the same as majority rule. Please, respect Keitei's suggestion, acknowledge that you need to learn more about mediation, and recuse yourself from this case. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:40, 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)

Yes, please. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:40, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
What you do is not nice Deskana. You question my credibility by taking into account the quantity of edits..It's not nice of you at all. Another mediator can assist me but I will not give up for this case. An NPOV solution was offered, the problem is at those users that are trying to impose a blatant POV there. --Wissahickon Creek talk 18:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
The fact you got to defensive about it really makes me glad that I said what I said. It's not an insult, nor was it an attempt to get you to give up a case, but an attempt to help both you as a mediator and the case needing mediation. No offense was intended, but handing out "NPOV solutions" then telling people they're POV pushers if they disagree with it is NOT mediation, it's more like WP:OWNage in an indirect way. Please let another mediator look over this case with you, before things get a bit messy. --Lord Deskana (talk) 18:46, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
I think that things are already getting messy. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:47, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
I will let another mediator to assist me, just to show you that what I did was correct. I don't have a particular interest in this issue but the way some of you tried to mock on me I haven't enjoy at all. As well the others who don't see that quality matters not quantity ...--Wissahickon Creek talk 18:50, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't think that it is mockery to point out that mediation is a difficult process akin to diplomacy, a process that requires listening, tact and clarity — qualities which Wissahickon Creek has not yet demonstrated. Criticism is not the same as mockery. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:56, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
OK, please stick to the subject not on the editor.Wissahickon Creek talk 19:05, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
It's not nice to WP:BITE the newcomers as I perhaps may have done unavoidably by telling Wissahickon that he needs help with this case, but we need to remember that building an encyclopedia is the main goal here, all other goals are second. I apologise if you have taken offense, but that was none intended, and I feel I have done what was required of me. --Lord Deskana (talk) 19:02, 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)

Dear Akhilleus, I was really suprized by the fact that after you accepted the compromise solution, a very neutral one, you again asked for your POV solution. However, I'm confident that also with the help of new mediators, a very neutral, compromise solution will be accepted by all parties once and for good.--Wissahickon Creek talk 20:25, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
I've edited the case page reflecting the popular opinion that Wissahickon Creek will be awaiting a senior mediator to handle the case, and that Wissahickon Creek will assist in mediation if they'd like to continue. My apologies to the parties involved in the mediation.
My statement of the ranking of importance in matters of mediation:
  1. Foundation Issues trump all other concerns, and are non-negotiable, as they are on every other WikiMedia Foundation project.
  2. Wikipedia:Policies are changeable, but require the consent of the community to do so.
  3. The concerns of the parties should next be addressed, maintaining that the outcome is acceptable to both the parties and the policies as stated above.
  4. The mediator in question and, by extension, the coordinators. The job of the mediator is to serve the parties in a friendly, neutral, and concerned manner. Coordinators have additional responsibilities as outlined on this page. Please remember that mediators are there to assist in productive discussion. We are not judges or police and do not hand down verdicts nor make decisions. We need to guide the parties involved into making mutually acceptable decisions.
At this time, it appears that the parties hold no ill feelings towards Wissahickon Creek, but would prefer another mediator handle the matter. Accordingly, I've reassigned Wissahickon Creek to be an assisting mediator, and await another party to pick up the mantle of mediation. If any of the parties involved know of someone they feel would make a good mediator, they are more than welcome to invite them to discuss matters with the other parties. If that person is acceptable, they're then welcome to take over the case, preferably asking Wissahickon Creek to assist in any ways possible and acceptable by the parties. ~Kylu (u|t) 19:54, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
~Kylu (u|t) 19:54, 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)

Request

See Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-10-18 Alexander the Great, User talk:Wissahickon Creek, and User talk:Keitei for relevant discussion

As Wissahickon Creek in the attempt to mediate this case

  • has not been neutral (repeatedly advocates an outcome and calls all other possibilities "POV")
  • has not acted with the proper decorum of a mediator (called users "trolls" and "POV pushers")
  • has not made any attempt to mediate the dispute
  • and despite frequent counsel on my part has not grasped the concept of mediation

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)

OK. --Wissahickon Creek talk 09:44, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Wissahickon Creek is no longer with us at MedCab. We apologize for the inconveniences he may have caused. ~Kylu (u|t) 00:04, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Request for Experienced Mediator on LTTE

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)

Copied from from Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-10-20 Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam
Note: I am currently busy due to real-life commitments, and therefore I may not be able to check in often. If you want to appoint another mediator, I have no problem with that. Nwwaew 22:57, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Copied by Addhoc 23:31, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Just so you don't think I'm ignoring this, I'm checking around to see if any of the usual mediators are available. If anyone wants to take this one over, feel free. ~Kylu (u|t) 00:03, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
I have been summoned by Kylu? Please to help you? --The Prophet Wizard of the Crayon Cake 00:26, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
CakeProphet is currently active in Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-10-20 Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam. Thank you. ~Kylu (u|t) 05:33, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Another mediator requested

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)

Looking for verification

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)

I've replied on the case page. Potentially, it may take checkuser or developer access to determine who the actual harasser is. For now, please be patient with things, and don't worry too much. :) ~Kylu (u|t) 07:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Heh, will do. Thank you very much! --Masamage 22:31, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-11-28 Image:Ann Coulter.jpg

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)

I've closed the case. Cowman109Talk 21:14, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-11-03 Starwood Festival

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'd like to get the opinions of others on possibly asking the mediator (User:Geo.plrd) to stop mediating, as he's apparently terribly busy with such projects as "Motto of the Day" and the like? This is not, sadly, the first time we've received such complaints. I apologize to the parties involved. ~Kylu (u|t) 21:30, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I am retiring after cleaning up any cases left. Geo. 02:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I would like to offically complain. The mediator for Starwood, who has recently been removed, just left a message on User:Rosencomet's page:
quote: hi Rosencomet, if you give me a list of the folks you want to create articles on, I will help with finding external sources. Geo. 02:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
This is what you call mediation? This looks like extreme bias to me. This explains why my "summary" went to a phoney page and why I cannot get a straight answer from the mediator. Sincerely, Mattisse(talk) 03:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree that this is inappropriate, and support the complaint. This comment to Rosencomet seems especially troubling given how Geo.plrd has been absent from the mediation and has been unresponsive to other parties to the mediation who have tried to contact him. --Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 03:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Please, please realize that this isn't mediation as a whole that's failed, it's the specific mediator. That problem has been solved in as appropriate a way as possible. I'd like to ask the parties to the mediation to try to select a mediator from the list and come to some sort of agreement on that. I'd like to suggest User:Addhoc and User:Ideogram, as they both seem to be good with mediation and staunchly neutral. Geo's gone and no longer mediating, and if you'd like to ask him to be a party (since he may not have been a properly neutral party) then feel free to do so. Again, I apologize that the mediator has been allowed to run amok on your case, but the solution isn't to give up attempts at discussion, it's to simply find someone else to mediate that discussion. If both sides already have someone they trust, you may want to consider asking them to take the role of mediator. ~Kylu (u|t) 04:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
I have no interest. It has been punishing enough. There is no support. One just exposes oneself for furture abuse and ridicule. It is time comsuming assembling data and no one listens anyway. I'm not spending the time, work and emotion resourses on something so useless again. Count me out. You pretty much said as much on your talk page to me. Sincerely, Mattisse(talk) 05:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-12-02 IRA 'Volunteer' usage

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)

Mediation is not a vote, nor is it RfC. Ideally, this shouldn't affect the outcome of the case, though that may be up to the mediator to determine if this is disruptive to their mediation. As long as this does not result in meatpuppetry or disruption of the mediation process, and the parties involved are mediating in good faith, I'm content to let this continue for a while, especially as you've already mentioned to the user that this isn't welcome behavior. ~Kylu (u|t) 01:10, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm just worried that the mediator won't realise that this kind of canvassing has occured, and assume that there is a general consensus that the term "Volunteer" should be used. As Wikipedia:spam notes:

"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)

On the other hand the same could possibly said for this [8] Vintagekits 00:35, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
The user in question had just reverted the insertion of "Volunteer" into the article that you (User:Vintagekits) had performed (despite User:Vintagekits knowing the case was in mediation). The user seemed unaware tht the term was under mediation and discussion, so the user was informed. This is not canvassing. Messaging tens of users of a particular viewpoint, however, is. 88.107.30.112 01:10, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
I have just looked through the messeges that you refer to, they look like they have been left ot a wide variety of users and it doesnt look like its pushing any viewpoint either Vintagekits 01:21, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Image:Cabal in english.jpg

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)

Janjua

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)

Hm, I can't quite pinpoint the dispute by glancing over the article and its talk page, but nonetheless the best way to ask for help from informal mediators would be by following the directions here. I hope that helps! Cowman109Talk 21:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)