Talk:Tent City 4/Archive 1

message: At this point I see little choice but to request a moderator to review the situation here.  I have consistently tried to observe the big three in the NPOV.  This page, like every other is subject to defacement.  I see a situation where one person with set views repeatedly removes material that diverges from his viewpoint.  Bobblehead has consistently shown edits that respect the input of all contributors...if not him, then another.  I can say how many years I've been involved with this issue, but it isn't going to protect the environment that Wikipedia strives to create.  --Cyclopedic 23:10, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll go easy on lists.  I really like the advice at the mediation page that says take a break, laugh a little, and put things in perspective.  The foundation of all communication still remains to me, "first seek to understand, then seek to be understood", and I'm open to listening. --Cyclopedic 00:19, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  A good foundation for all communication would be honesty as well.  Adding content that is flat untrue, then citing articles that do not address the content at all, is dishonest.  Once is a mistake, repeatedly doing the same thing is dishonest.  Removing everything from an article that you don't like, is dishonest.  I have shown a willingness to work with you to include information you want as long as it is valid and supportable but you have shown that you don't want an honest article, you want distortions.  -- [Coz]
Hello! I'm one of the mediators at Mediation Cabal, but not necessarily the one who will be mediating the case. As a courtesy, I've finished creating the mediation page started by Cyclopedic but have not filled out any sections, as this would be rather improper. :)
Anywho, if you are willing to persue mediation, your case page is Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-06-19 Tent City and Tent City 4(King County, Washington). If not, please tell us so we may close the case, or if you'd just rather use it in an attempt to negotiate in a neutral setting, that's fine. We'd like to suggest using the talkpage for the case, in the event that you might wish to use the main page to record the outcome.
Of course, it's always better to resolve issues amicably between yourselves, but if you do wish for mediator assistance to attain a compromise, we'll be happy to help! ~Kylu (u|t)  03:17, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I've gone ahead a volunteered to be the mediator for this mediation request.  If there is any objections to that just let me know and I'll recuse myself and open it up for someone else to be a mediator. --Bobblehead 19:55, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Frankly we have no need for a mediator.  We have a new user that thinks they can discredit anything that doesn't support their viewpoint by throwing fear, doubt, and uncertianty into the process by exploiting tags and mediation requests rather than participating in the process the way it is designed to be.  This is the tactic that is being used by the Church Council in every single forum where this topic is discused and I was actually quite surprised it took this long for them to stir the pot here.  You have done a great job of helping this, and other articles, stay on track and I do not see any reason that this article won't continue to grow well with your assistance.  Thank you!  --Coz 20:13, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Cyclopedic hasn't completed the mediation request yet and doesn't seem to be around right now anways. I'm waiting for him to complete the request before I jump in so I make sure I have all the issues identified.  I've given him until July 9 to complete the request before I close it and get it off the open case list. This does not, however, mean that he can not re-open it at a later date if he so chooses. --Bobblehead 17:11, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

text:  I don't expect we will see him/her again.  They were putting out an all out push to control the message when they were concerned that the court would make them post a $250,000 bond.  When that didn't happen they didn't have the need to spin the issue anymore.
--Coz 05:46, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mediation request 

message: Cyclopedic's updates bring up an issue I've been having with the general formatting in this article. It's not the month and year that is really important, but the location of the move. how about instead of having the Month Year be the section header, we have the name of the location?  So instead of May 2004 we have St. Brendan's Church (May 2004). I'm about to head out for a bit, but I'll see about making the transition later tonight if there aren't any objections. --Bobblehead 22:01, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Formatting

message: Quick summary of the changes I made and why:
*I removed the sentence about courts requiring a warrant check be conducted because the cited source directly contradicts that statement by saying:
A King County Superior Court judge ruled in a lawsuit the city of Bothell filed against St. Brendan Catholic Church in May of that year that Tent City 4 residents could not be required to present verifiable identification for warrant or sex-offender checks. But the ruling also stated that the city had the right to require permits and impose conditions.
This tends to mean the city is within it's rights to require a warrant check as long as it doesn't not require verifiable identification be presented, not that the courts require the checks. It also made no mention of the fact that TC4 already conducts voluntary warrant checks (which kind of makes you wonder why they object to that condition).
*The paragraph regarding surprise of the city officials and the pastor's participation in TACAC looks like original research as the cite provided does not indicate surpise of city officials, but is a link to TACAC's findings. Find a source that supports the claim and it can be included. I also took the paragraph out because, in my opinion, the surprise of the city officials is more newsy than encyclopedic, but that's just my opinion and I'm open to it being included with the proper source.
*I added the citation needed tag to the final paragraph in that section as it's rather POV and needs to have a citation before it can remain for any extended period of time.
--Bobblehead 19:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: WUCC edits