Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/2007 Archive 1

message: Hi guys!
Ive been in MedCab for a couple of weeks now and im on case number 5, with 2 closed and one about to be, but none of them ever seem to be listed on the open cases list. I make sure ive been changing the status fields on the mediation page to open, is there something else ive been missing? Talk to you all soon Squad'nLeedah 20:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the bot's been dead the past two weeks and I've been unable to contact Ericj about it, so that's probably why. :D Cowman109Talk 20:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've gotten my hands on the bot's code so we at least have a temporary, manually updatable measure until we get a dedicated bot running up again. Cowman109Talk 23:42, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naughty Bot :( 

message: was the mediator for Talk:Muhammad/Mediation, but he retired from Wikipedia a month ago. Anyone else want to step up? - Merzbow 22:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll do it, but I'll need time to read it first. | AndonicO Talk | Sign Here 13:22, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mediator left Wikipedia, need another 

message: Recently found Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts as another place to find trouble a-brewin' for people who want to pick up a simple case to practice with. :-) Kim Bruning 19:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:   [[Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts]]  

message: I hadn't noticed before, but this long dead wiki-organisation actually seems to be operational again, and some of their setup looks suspiciously mediation-cabal-like ;-) <Griiiiiin> Kim Bruning 01:01, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:AMA|Association of Members Advocates]] 

message: Hello -- I have a question, My request is for mediation between two users who argue incessantly over various articles. These two seem to argue regularly on various articles coming close to 3RR several times. Is this an appropriate place to get these two to play nice with others, or is there another/better venue? Rob110178 04:14, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If they're both willing to agree to mediation then absolutely!  Otheriwise, consider the section of the Administrators' Noticeboard used for 3RR violations. Flakeloaf 13:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mediation between users and not articles 

message: Some people are leaving me non stop things on my talk page, i do not want them to ever to talk to me, reply on my talk page. Also what is the difference here between this mediation and administrator's notice board?Where this cabel come from, this is new? -Boxingwear — Preceding unsigned comment added by BoxingWear (talk • contribs) 
Hello BoxingWear. Please use four tildes (~~~~) to sign your name. That way it adds a link to your user page and adds the time you posted your question, both of which are helpful. I reviewed the talk page entries that have been posted. I think there is a slight misunderstanding as to the purpose of a talk page on Wikipedia. Quoting from various parts of WP:TALK:
These policies apply to all talk pages, on Wikipedia, though most people probably agree that since user talk pages are in user space, you should have a little more say in what stays or goes on your talk page. I, for instance, state that I reserve the right to remove offensive content posted to my talk page. It really doesn't matter, because everything posted on Wikipedia is permanently archived. But at least I do not have to stare at it. :-)
If the comments added to the page were vandalism, spiteful, or full of hateful speech, reporting the incident on the Administrators' Notice Board is a good thing to do. Contacting an admin friendly to you in the past is not as good of a choice, because it could escalate the issue due to perceived conflict of interest. You case is a little different. The other parties appear to be using your talk page in a proper manner to engage in editorial discussions about certain articles and actions that have been taken on Wikipedia.
Threatening and intimidating the other user for continued good-faith attempts at communicating to resolve differences in opinion is not the most effective way to resolve this issue. I would suggest you open a mediation case here, and work together through the various issues the two of you are facing. It's not the edits on the talk page, but rather that edits in the articles that really need to be resolved. Once they are resolved, the other user is unlikely to write on your talk page any more.
I wish you the best of luck in resolving this. Please remember that everyone at Wikipedia should be working toward the same goal of improving the site. We just have different ways of going about it. It doesn't mean either party is necessarily wrong, but it can certainly feel that way sometimes. Open communication (the point of both the talk pages and this cabal) are the best ways of enacting that here at Wikipedia. Take care. --Willscrlt (Talk·Cntrb) 04:05, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Requesting assistance

message: Mediated about a dozen conflicts a long while ago, just stopping by to see what is going on. It would be great if someone could figure out our "success rate". What fraction of mediations actually begin, and what fraction are actually "resolved" in a positive fashion? Rather curious, Sdedeo (tips) 23:38, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's hard to define "success".  I would say most often mediations just die because people lose interest.  If those aren't "successes" then our success rate would be quite low, I'd estimate less than ten percent.  --Ideogram 23:53, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

text: BTW, Wikipedia:Mediation Committee isn't better. Incidentally, just last week I wanted to see if they had any success stories that we could learn from, but out of 99 cases I could only find two obvious successes (including one simple misunderstanding that was clarified with one question) and a handful of cases that were labelled as success, but I couldn't find out why. I asked about it on Wikipedia talk:Mediation Committee, but nobody replied so far. — Sebastian 03:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: visiting after absence

message: Hi, I am having a big problem here, i do not want to leave any more replies on a certain page, because it may get me into trouble, i need somebody who knows something on boxing and will look at my situation from neutral point of view. -Boxingwear
: Please follow the instructions under "Making a request for assistance" on the project page. — Sebastian 03:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutral administrator needed, somebody who knows sports

message: Sorry to create a new topic, but I want to emphasise my disagreement with having the template stuck on the article page itself. Didn't notice that. I really think doing that is a bad idea, if only because of the trouble it would lead to if other groups starting doing it (can you imagine the proliferation of tags on the article page -- "this article is currently under review by the wikipedia committee for X"). We're used to massive numbers of well-intentioned tags on talk pages, but I don't think we want to see the same creep for article pages except for long accepted tags like NPOV, etc. Sdedeo (tips) 05:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed - talk pages maybe, but definitely never on the article; the MedCab's role is to assist, not act as either a means of legitimising a dispute amongst participants (like the "totally disputed" tag) nor to steamroller an article into a state of being formally "mediated" via a huge banner at the top of it. If I recall the quote correctly, Bismarck once remarked that men should not have to know how either laws or sausages are made; article browsers should not have to know how article content is warred over, either, nor be presented with a war zone rather than an article. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 00:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with this.  We should not be sticking administrative notices on article pages.  --Ideogram 05:59, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: woah woah

message: I just want somebody to talk to User:Nurg about his bad habit of marking major edits including reverts as "minor". This is something which User:Wik use to do a lot of, you would see in Wik's contribution listing Revert after Revert all marked as "minor" and all with "rv" as the description. Deleteing other people's work or inserting new content is not a "minor" edit in MHO.58.107.15.245 05:30, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Request someone talk to Nurg

message: This figure is really a complete guess.  Cases that attract someone's interest might be taken up the same day, while the oldest case right now is over three weeks old.  I suggest that we should simply remove this number.  --Ideogram 06:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If there is no protest here in the next few days I will remove the entire status board.  --Ideogram 05:58, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No objection here ;D. Cowman109Talk 06:15, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Go for it, it's been bugging me for a while too. Jem 09:35, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's gone.  --Ideogram 11:20, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Status board est. response time 

message: Whilst I recognise that mediators should be completely neutral, which I have consistently tried to uphold whilst mediating Surrealism, what do I do when we have reached a consensus and then one of the parties disappears, but returns with a whole host of newly registered users (who type with the same syntax, have similar user pages, want the same things and keep reverting the same thing). This to me does look like a fairly obvious case of sockpuppetry, but as I am neutral, is it my place to report, ignore or what? Have a look here, you'll see what I mean. Jem 09:38, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I personally would file an RFCU, or, if I wanted to be more careful, offer to help anyone who wished to file an RFCU.  But absolutely do not take action based on my opinion alone, since I have a history of being unable to maintain neutrality in the face of what I consider obvious abuse.  --Ideogram 09:45, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

text: On second thought, I don't see anything wrong with going directly to WP:SSP.  Many neutral observers there will help you make a determination.  --Ideogram 09:48, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I would ask a 3rd party to go to the Suspected Sockpuppetry board. Really, we could use a kind of discrete investigation group at times like these. :-) --Kim Bruning 22:28, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Haha, I agree. In the end I was forced to take the action of filing the report myself as his actions have begun to get out of hand. if this means stepping down as mediator in this case to presevre neutrality, I will, but ultimately my goal at all times is to protect the interests of Wikipedia. For the time being no-one has voiced any COI concerns. Jem 18:38, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The status of WP:SSP is apparently somewhat in doubt.  For quicker results, you may have to go to WP:RFCU directly.  --Ideogram 10:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sockpuppetry in a MedCab case 

message: The discussion on Street Fighter article naming conventions has almost run out of steam.  Both sides have put up reasonable arguments on why their perspectives are worth listening to and I've tried pretty hard to argue in favour and against both of them at the same time throughout our chat.  We've now come to the point where we're re-re-rehashing old points instead of bringing up new ones.  Could someone else please take a look at the wall of text we've generated and offer their thoughts before I try to push this thing bedward?  Flakeloaf 04:59, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When you've reached a deadlock often it is best to appeal to a broader audience for input, by asking at the Village pump, posting a Wikiquette alert, or filing a Request for Comment.  --Ideogram 19:22, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Third Opinion on Street Fighter discussion 

message: This looks a tad like what people were talking about during wikimania? --Kim Bruning 00:41, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:Durova/Community_enforced_mediation]] 

message: /medintro  <- I'll try to write something --19:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: as an example of how not to write :-/ --Kim Bruning 22:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction to mediation 

message: Since I've got six trainees and no actual cases yet, I've written to each of them suggesting they lend a hand here.  Saw the notice that you're backlogged.  Best wishes, DurovaCharge! 22:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you! --Kim Bruning 22:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Community enforced mediation