Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/2007 Archive 4

message: After several months of calm, there is a new edit conflict brewing on this page. I think an involvement of a 3rd party mediator at Talk:March Days, which was an experience on this page before, would be very helpful to bring about a consensus. Thanks. Atabek 04:29, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[March Days]] Mediation Request

message: Is there any feedback mechanism to see how successfull the MedCab is? It might be nice for evaluation purposes, to be able to see how many cases the MedCab succesfully mediated in the last period of time, and how many cases were closed in that period in total, and maybe how long the average case has taken. Martijn Hoekstra 16:18, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: None in place as far as I'm aware - but by looking at the last edits on case pages it shouldn't be too hard to come up with a general idea of how things ended up, I would think. Cowman109Talk 22:53, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  There was some discussion about this in January. I would like to add that, as we're a cabal, not all of our mediation work is visible. In my experience, I found the invisible work more effective. — Sebastian 00:48, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Successrate 

message: For at least a week, we have had no open cases. This is quite a change from 6 months ago, when there were about a dozen open cases. I don't think that this is because there are no conflicts. Why is that? Is that a problem? And what can we do about it? — Sebastian 08:18, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure, but things have been unusually slow for MedCom as well. Looking at the edit history of WP:3O, it appears as though that avenue of dispute resolution is also somewhat less-used than it was previously. So, it appears on a casual examination that dispute resolution as a whole is experiencing varying drop-offs in use. I can't offer anything but speculation as to why this is, or what should be done about it. I'm letting the members of MedCom know about the discussion, in case they have anything to add. I will also leave a note at WT:3O. Perhaps by inviting more discussion, we can better explore the issue and possible solutions. Vassyana 16:35, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I had noticed that our open tasks box was stubbier than normal. However, what I also saw was period with only one pending case (like right now) or even none at all, and this lasted for a week, and then we suddenly got three or four cases in twenty four hours, and they've since been rejected or accepted, and now it's back to none or one. Probably just natural variation. Daniel 16:46, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Requests for Arbitration is now at its lowest level of use for a long while - in fact, in waiting to Clerk a case, I had to wait over 2 weeks. Perhaps there is simply less disputes in the encyclopedia... or the disputes are simply being handled without third-party intervention. Either way, I don't think it is a cause for concern, although I would stop short at saying it is a good thing, as we don't yet know the complete circumstances. Something to be watched... Anthøny 20:24, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  No open cases 

message: A very long debate has sprung up here Talk:Dragon_Ball_Z, and so far all attempts to resolve matters have utterly failed.
A short synopsis is that one user has taken it upon himself to remove all information that he considers to be "unsourced". However, there is no reason behind it. There was no discussion about this being necessary, no one even talked about it before he started wiping out large sections of multiple articles. He just posted a message one day stating that if people didn't add sources he'd delete everything without a reference. Even though he has stated that to NOT be his intent, removing almost all information without a ref tag is the net result of his actions. This has reduced many of the articles to stub status, from being several pages.
He regulary describes his actions as enforcing wikipedia policy. But he seems to think that guidelines and essays are trumped by policy and doesn't understand that they exist to explain how to implement policy. He has also refused to listen to anyone who disagrees, and regulary treats other editors with disdain. And refuses to let other editors change things back without adding a specific reference for every tiny change.--Marhawkman 12:01, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While things are a bit informal around here, I would suggest following the instructions for filing a mediation request. If you have any questions, feel free to ask. — Sebastian 18:02, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is that good?--Marhawkman 12:59, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Um... the Mediator left, and we haven't actually worked anything out yet.--Marhawkman (talk) 20:19, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've reset the case status to 'new' so that another mediator can take the case. Addhoc (talk) 18:12, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Thank you.--Marhawkman (talk) 12:58, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  DBZ near deletions 

message: Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-11-17 Werner Erhard has been requested for Werner Erhard. Since there is an ongoing OTRS legal complaint re: Werner Erhard, at ticket #2007051510011812, we need an OTRS volunteer either to mediate or to assist with the mediation. Please see Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal for general information, and feel free to send me e-mail for any specific questions. — Sebastian 04:58, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll assist with this one. Sebastian, see your email. Cheers, Daniel 06:46, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mediator with OTRS access needed 

message: I am on indefinite wikibreak, so I have removed myself from the list of coordinators. If anyone has questions, or if I could help out on a case, please drop me an email and I'll offer what advice and assistance I can. Be well all! Vassyana (talk) 07:47, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry to hear this; especially after I got good advice from you. Your help here is surely appreciated. Good luck with your other endeavours! — Sebastian 08:00, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coordinator 

message: I've got this edit nazi (Omi Omni Alfador) following me around everywhere. I tried to insert a section describing the socionics theory of creativity, which attributes creative expression to psychological functions, into the creativity article. He made the judgement that "this is absolutely not conclusive", despite the existence of a genuine institute for the study of socionics in Kiev, and several dozen independent, licensed authorities besides. Apparently Mr. "Alfador" thinks that he can restrain awareness on psychology topics he doesn't like. As it is, the creativity article says a lot about the Western view, and very little about the Eastern side of psychology.
It is frightening to think that someone so willfully ignorant as Mr. Alfador can acheive a position of respect and prestige at a place like this. Anyway, how do I get moderation for this? Tcaudilllg (talk) 23:00, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please follow the steps of Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. — Sebastian 20:55, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I need help. 

message: This from open cases:
* 2007-11-11 Dragon Ball Z — Mediator(s): SJP
* 2007-11-11 Maitreya Project — Mediator(s): SJP
Combined with this: User:SJP Probably means that some action should be taken on the cases. Should they be relisted, or closed, or something else? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:27, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've relisted the Dragon Ball Z case and closed the Maitreya Project case which was succesfully mediated by SJP. Addhoc (talk) 18:12, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some action needed 

message: This mediator has imposed a decision with this edit. I would respectfully request that the true result of the mediation is recorded. Aatomic1 (talk) 23:21, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Aatomic1, I've trimmed the comment.--Addhoc (talk) 23:51, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The mediator made that decision, due to Atomics refusal to stop edit warring on the articles under mediation, dispite being warned to cease, Atomic has shown that he is intent on continuing edit warring whatever the outcome of the mediation.--Padraig (talk) 23:57, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The closing comment by the mediator has been rephrased by SirFozzie, to emphasise that it was an opinion, instead of a binding decision. Obviously agree that revert warring should be avoided. Addhoc (talk) 07:30, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  We do not impose sanctions or make judgments 

message: I noticed that mediation Church of Scientology Moscow versus Russia is still open but has been settled a long time ago. The reason might be that mediator user:Alpta didn't participate in Wikipedia since September(shortly after opening the case). I suggest to close it if possible. -- Stan  talk 21:14, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks - I've closed the case. Addhoc (talk) 22:08, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Good question! This situation is actually quite common, so I added it to our step II. Has anyone contested the article name "Kuban Cossacks"? If not then I'd just add the template first there, and then copy it to the other talk pages. The rest of your message here seems like a good candidate for the "What's going on" section. — Sebastian 00:53, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Church of Scientology Moscow versus Russia]] 

message: I just learned the hard way that it is pointless to even start a mediation if the requestor is not willing to cooperate with the other party in order to reach a solution. In my impression, that is the most important precondition. I think this is more important than some of the other points listed under "preconditions". I just replaced the fourfold mention of "need discussion" with the precondition "You must have have been following Wikipedia:Dispute resolution", because that condition belongs there and is much better described there.  
I would also like to make the following changes: 
* Cut "If you need outside opinions, you can ...". This is already covered in WP:DR 
* Replace the three repetitions of "Mediation is purely voluntary" with: "Mediation only works when all parties cooperate. Therefore, you need to be willing to cooperate, and you need to write your case in such a way that makes it easy for the other party to cooperate, too. 
* Cut "All parties must be willing to assume good faith." There are several parts of this precondition:
** "The other side must be willing to AGF": How is the requestor supposed to know what the other side is willing to assume? 
** "You must be willing to AGF": This is covered by the condition "you must be willing to cooperate". Moreover, who would not say "I'm willing"? (That reminds me of the form foreigners have to fill out on entering the US: "Check here if you enter this country if you plan to commit terrorism".) 
** I would not want to reduce it to "You must AGF", either: Often, requestors may be willing to cooperate, but they just can't see for the life of them any good faith explanations for the other party's actions. I don't see why we would want to exclude such cases; personally, I find these cases most rewarding; I find it is worth our best effort to help such people see a way out of their dilemma. 
Are there any objections? — Sebastian 02:25, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. I also added "Don't worry if the other side is not cooperating yet; mediators will help you with that", because I feel that's precisely our task; we can't shy away from those cases! — Sebastian 05:30, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Preconditions 

message: The current mediator on the Crown Heights Riot  case is Leonmon, who is a new editor. I'm not sure if he is completely new to the project, or is a returning experienced editor with a new account. However, provided he doesn't turn out to be a Geo.plrd sock or something, this shouldn't be a problem. If any experienced mediators are available to provide guidance, that would be greatly appreciated. Addhoc 17:13, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This mediation looks pretty complicated to me, and the mediator has taken on yet another complicated case, where the parties are concerned that the mediator may not have enough experience. I believe that it is extremely important that both parties can trust the mediator, so I will take a look at this case and see if I can get an impression how Leonmon is doing. — Sebastian 06:03, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

text: OK, I did look at it, and I'm truly impressed! We should all do our best to assist this experienced mediator, who is really a godsent! (See also User talk:Leonmon) — Sebastian 19:45, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your comments Sebastian. At the moment, Revolving Bugbear (formerly Che Nuevara) is also mediating the Crown Heights Riot case.--Addhoc 23:01, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New mediator on [[Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-10-23 Crown Heights Riot|Crown Heights Riot]] case 

message: The Sterling Management Systems case has been relisted on opentasks, because of concerns about lack of progress. Addhoc (talk) 19:20, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The first part of the mediator statement, written at 05:21, seems appropriate to me. The second part, written at 15:27, contains indeed some accusations that should not just be stated without any proof. I think, however, that this is forgivable since it appears that the parties did not follow up on the compromise path, which the mediator professionallly prepared, but rather started insulting each other. (See archive.) In such a situation, anybody would be frustrated, and it is only human that that frustration shows in the statement. Moreover, this mediator is new and may not be familiar with our custom to back up everything with diffs. I think it is the task of a MedCab coordinator to explain such things to a mediator and ask  to provide these diffs, rather than jumping to conclusions. It is part of WP:AGF to assume that people can learn, and to give them the chance to do so. I will do so now. — Sebastian 22:52, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I appreciate your comments Sebastian.  I was indeed too harsh with my closing comments so I reworded them to make them less harsh.  I'm learning the WIKIcustoms quickly.
--Leonmon (talk) 01:12, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Closing of the Sterling Management Systems case 

message: I believe the purpose of MedCab is to facilitate mediation. It is the duty of a MedCab coordinator to assist and mentor mediators, especially new ones. User:Addhoc abandoned this duty by repeatedly attacking a well-intended mediator with unwarranted accusations on Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-11-07 Sterling Management Systems. 
In the last 8 days, I have tried to talk with User:Addhoc about this in numerous e-mails, but unfortunately did not effect any change in this inappropriate behavior. Sadly, I therefore need to report this failure here. I am especially appalled at this since the mediator, User:Leonmon, has done an excellent, professional job in preparing questions and suggestions to parties, and I can not understand why a MedCab coordinator would want to risk loosing such a dedicated mediator. I also think it hurts MedCab if one coordinator is not open to the concerns of another coordinator. — Sebastian 21:18, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sebastian, for the record, Leonmon has done two mediations on Wikipedia.  You don't seem to grok that during Leonmon's period of absense, User:Misou disrupted the mediation with repeated incivility.  That is the "dagger in the chest".  That is what destroyed the mediation. Am I going to have to repeat that to you again?--Fahrenheit451 23:46, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Addhoc removed Leonmon's name from the info box.  There was no documentation that he "kicked" Leonmon off the case, so that is a false accusation.--Fahrenheit451 23:57, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Sebastian, please define your words carefully.  I think you have wrongfully hurled an accusation at Addhoc.  While Leonmon did not desert the case, he did give up control of the mediation to a disruptive user. Also, you are comparing two entirely different circumstances of mediation which is a fallacy.--Fahrenheit451 23:51, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you for the clarification. I struck the passage from "but it is unclear ..." on. — Sebastian 23:12, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for striking out the passage but now the paragrapph suggests even more that comments/edits from Addhoc caused the step I took. ):  Striking it completly might be more appropriate since its redundant for this dispute but it suggests the opposite. -- Stan  talk 23:58, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

text: SebastianHelm knows very well why I left the mediation and I repeatedly advised him I would if the mediator did not change in the case.--Fahrenheit451 22:50, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

text:  No, User:Fahrenheit451, I do not know why you left the mediation. Your repeated accusation that the mediator "abandoned" the case can not be a reason since it is not supported by facts, as clearly evident from items #10 and 11 in the timeline above. I asked you in several e-mails if you had any other reason, but you refused to provide any. I will respect your wish to keep our conversation private and not quote you, but I have to ask you to disclose here in public your reasons for (1) asking the mediator to close the case and (2) leaving the case. — Sebastian 23:09, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I did not accuse "User:Addhoc ... of abandoning the coordination process" but I stated that ey abandoned eir duty as a MedCab coordinator to help mediators. Maybe the word "abandoned" was not the best choice, and I herewith change that to "neglected". Please provide references for your accusation of distortion of facts. Please also provide your reason for your demand for "substituting the mediator". — Sebastian 23:28, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Fahrenheit451 and Stan, thanks for your comments. The last comment by Leonmon on the case page was to thank me for offering advice, and in this context, I'm not sure continuing this discussion is necessary. Addhoc 00:46, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  MedCab coordination gone wrong 

message: # 05:14, November 18: Mediator announces absence for “couple days” because of an office move
# 19:37, November 21: User:Fahrenheit451 complains that “Leonmon abandoned mediation”.
# 20:27, November 21: Sebastian explains that an absence of a few days is normal here. (See discussion at User talk:SebastianHelm#Comment on User:Leonmon. There was also an e-mail discussion which I will be happy to disclose if User:Fahrenheit451 has no objection.) In fact, it is not even normal, but it is very minor compared to User:Addhoc’s practice of leaving cases for much longer periods of time, as e.g. in Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-06-13 Sardaka, where ey left the parties discussing alone for five weeks (from June 13 to July 19) without any explanation or notice on the case page. 
#: SebastianHelm, our email exchange was private. You do not have my permission to reveal any of my emails.--Fahrenheit451 22:54, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Addhoc removed Leonmon's name from the info box.  There was no documentation that he "kicked" Leonmon off the case, so that is a false accusation.--Fahrenheit451 23:57, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Timeline 

message: ;The accusation “abandoned” is patently inappropriate: User:Fahrenheit451 repeated this accususation several times since ey brought it up on User talk:SebastianHelm#Comment on User:Leonmon, despite my explanations there. It appears User:Addhoc is copying User:Fahrenheit451’s groundless accusation verbatim without checking the facts. I had pointed User:Addhoc to that discussion by e-mail last week, so User:Addhoc had the occasion to inform emself that it was inappropriate back then already, especially since I reminded User:Addhoc of the Sardaka case. This term has become even more inappropriate when the mediator replied a few hours later, and patently inappropriate after the mediator provided a professional list of pertinent questions and compromise suggestions. 
;The accusation “abandoned” is disingenuous: It is obviously disingenuous for User:Addhoc to accuse a new mediator of abandoning a case when an announced absence is overstayed by a day or two, while User:Addhoc emself stays away many weeks on unexplained absence, leaving parties alone with their discusssion. We don’t have a “quod licet Iovi, non licet bovi” standard here.
:Sebastian, please define your words carefully.  I think you have wrongfully hurled an accusation at Addhoc.  While Leonmon did not desert the case, he did give up control of the mediation to a disruptive user. Also, you are comparing two entirely different circumstances of mediation which is a fallacy.--Fahrenheit451 23:51, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Findings according to User:SebastianHelm 

message: In order to solve this amicably, I propose the following actions: 
# Both User:Fahrenheit451 and User:Addhoc to publicly apologize to User:Leonmon for their unwarranted and unfounded accusations. 
# User:Fahrenheit451 to explain why ey left the project after the mediator posted the questions and proposals. 
# User:Addhoc to explain why ey repeated User:Fahrenheit451’s false accusations without checking the facts.
— Sebastian 21:24, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you for the clarification. I struck the passage from "but it is unclear ..." on. — Sebastian 23:12, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for striking out the passage but now the paragrapph suggests even more that comments/edits from Addhoc caused the step I took. ):  Striking it completly might be more appropriate since its redundant for this dispute but it suggests the opposite. -- Stan  talk 23:58, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

text: SebastianHelm knows very well why I left the mediation and I repeatedly advised him I would if the mediator did not change in the case.--Fahrenheit451 22:50, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

text:  No, User:Fahrenheit451, I do not know why you left the mediation. Your repeated accusation that the mediator "abandoned" the case can not be a reason since it is not supported by facts, as clearly evident from items #10 and 11 in the timeline above. I asked you in several e-mails if you had any other reason, but you refused to provide any. I will respect your wish to keep our conversation private and not quote you, but I have to ask you to disclose here in public your reasons for (1) asking the mediator to close the case and (2) leaving the case. — Sebastian 23:09, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed resolution 

message: In order to resolve this justly, I propose the following actions:
#SebastianHelm publicly apologize to User:Addhoc for false accusations of abandoning the coordination process.
#SebastianHelm explain publicly why he distorted the facts of this mediation and turned a simple matter of substituting the mediator into what appears to be a persecution of User:Addhoc.--Fahrenheit451 22:50, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I did not accuse "User:Addhoc ... of abandoning the coordination process" but I stated that ey abandoned eir duty as a MedCab coordinator to help mediators. Maybe the word "abandoned" was not the best choice, and I herewith change that to "neglected". Please provide references for your accusation of distortion of facts. Please also provide your reason for your demand for "substituting the mediator". — Sebastian 23:28, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Fahrenheit451 and Stan, thanks for your comments. The last comment by Leonmon on the case page was to thank me for offering advice, and in this context, I'm not sure continuing this discussion is necessary. Addhoc 00:46, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Counter proposed resolution 

message: An important purpose of Mediation Cabal is to facilitate mediation. It is the duty of a MedCab coordinator to assist and mentor mediators, especially new ones. 
User:Addhoc neglected this duty by repeatedly attacking a well-intended mediator with unwarranted accusations on Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-11-07 Sterling Management Systems. 
From November 22 till November 30, Mediation Cabal coordinator SebastianHelm has tried to talk with Mediation Cabal coordinator Addhoc about this in numerous e-mails, but unfortunately did not effect any change in this inappropriate behavior. Sadly, SebastianHelm therefore needs to report this failure here. This is especially appalling since the mediator, User:Leonmon, has done an excellent, professional job in preparing questions and suggestions to parties, and Mediation Cabal has no interest in loosing such a dedicated mediator. Moreover, it hurts Mediation Cabal if one coordinator is not open to the concerns of another coordinator. 
For the Mediation Cabal — Sebastian 21:18, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overview 

message: In order to solve this amicably, I propose the following actions: 
# Both User:Fahrenheit451 and User:Addhoc to publicly apologize to User:Leonmon for their unwarranted and unfounded accusations. 
# User:Fahrenheit451 to explain why ey left the project after the mediator posted the questions and proposals. 
# User:Addhoc to explain why ey repeated User:Fahrenheit451’s false accusations without checking the facts.
— Sebastian 21:24, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The above text has been provided by uninvolved Mediation Cabal coordinator.  Please do not modify it, unless you are an uninvolved Mediation Cabal coordinator. Subsequent comments should be made below.</div>
For the sake of MedCab, I also would like the two coordinators to commit to take each other's concerns seriously and to respond to e-mails quickly. 
Moreover, I would like to remind that, in a mail about a week ago, I had proposed two possible ways to prevent situations like this from happening:
* I gave User:Addhoc my phone number because, in my experience, a combination of e-mail and phone works best in resolving misunderstandings. I am aware that User:Addhoc lives on a different continent, but I am willing to make long distance phone calls. But for that, I would of course need User:Addhoc's number. 
* I proposed to ask a mutual friend to mediate between us, and did not receive a response to that. 
Please, Addhoc, respond to my requests. MedCab works best when the coordinators coordinate their work. — Sebastian 21:48, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed resolution 

message: Because of persistent disruption, in particular of the numbered list that destroyed the numbering, the sections that have been prepared by the uninvolved Mediation Cabal coordinator have been marked with a green background to prevent this from happening again. — Sebastian 05:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Administrative notice 

message: "20:10, November 23: User:Stan En leaves the mediation with the comment “no more interest in this "kindergarden"”. This is directly following User:Addhoc’s unexplained changes to the case, but it is unclear whether these changes are what triggered User:Stan En's step." Again, as I already explained ! I did not leave due to any mediator's action;neither Addhoc's nor Leonmen's! My edit comment(kindergarden) was inappropriate and I apologize for that. I mainly contributed on the discussion page of the mediation project(SMS) and didn't even notice the changes made by Addhoc. -- Stan  talk 22:23, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for the clarification. I struck the passage from "but it is unclear ..." on. — Sebastian 23:12, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for striking out the passage but now the paragrapph suggests even more that comments/edits from Addhoc caused the step I took. ):  Striking it completly might be more appropriate since its redundant for this dispute but it suggests the opposite. -- Stan  talk 23:58, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You are right, it isn't that important and distracts from the issue. I will remove it. — Sebastian 06:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re:20:10, November 23

message: SebastianHelm knows very well why I left the mediation and I repeatedly advised him I would if the mediator did not change in the case.--Fahrenheit451 22:50, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, User:Fahrenheit451, I do not know why you left the mediation. Your repeated accusation that the mediator "abandoned" the case can not be a reason since it is not supported by facts, as clearly evident from items #9 and 10 in the timeline above. I asked you in several e-mails if you had any other reason, but you refused to provide any. I will respect your wish to keep our conversation private and not quote you, but I have to ask you to disclose here in public your reasons for (1) asking the mediator to close the case and (2) leaving the case. — Sebastian 23:09, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Leonmon returned to the case on November 22 and called for civility. Please explain why you left the case 5 (five!) days later. — Sebastian 06:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because I considered the mediation tainted after Misou's unrestrained incivility.  I edited the page to withdraw some time after I decided to withdraw.--Fahrenheit451 (talk) 03:30, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why User:Fahrenheit451 left the mediation 

message: User:SebastianHelm, perhaps we are operating off of different definitions of "Abandon".  The one I use is: "To give up to another's control or mercy".
You may be thinking in terms of "forsake or desert".  Indeed, User:Misou disrupted the mediation with repeated incivility.  By Leonmon not intervening, he effectively gave up the mediation to another's control. No evidence Leonmon deserted the mediation, but perhaps we are using the same word for different actions.--Fahrenheit451 23:25, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for pointing that out. All my dictionary definitions of "to abandon" imply permanence. Would you be willing to change that word to a word that doesn't imply permanence? — Sebastian 05:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, some of my definitions imply permanence and others do not. A more accurate statement would be: Leonmon, because of his absense, temporarily gave up control of the mediation to an uncivil, disruptive user."--Fahrenheit451 (talk) 05:20, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definitions of "Abandon" 

message: SebastianHelm, our email exchange was private. You do not have my permission to reveal any of my emails.--Fahrenheit451 22:54, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course, that's why I'm asking. Thank you for your reply. — Sebastian 23:04, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re: 20:27, November 21 (Privacy of e-mail) 

message: :Addhoc removed Leonmon's name from the info box.  There was no documentation that he "kicked" Leonmon off the case, so that is a false accusation.--Fahrenheit451 23:57, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re: 18:36, November 23 

message: Omitted data:StanEn made a couple statements as to why he left that were quite clear and Addhoc actions were not mentioned or alluded to.--Fahrenheit451 23:01, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for pointing this out; this entry has been changed. — Sebastian 05:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re: 20:10, November 23 

message: Sebastian, please define your words carefully.  I think you have wrongfully hurled an accusation at Addhoc.  While Leonmon did not desert the case, he did give up control of the mediation to a disruptive user. Also, you are comparing two entirely different circumstances of mediation which is a fallacy.--Fahrenheit451 23:51, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See section #Definitions of "Abandon" above. — Sebastian 05:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re: The accusation “abandoned” is disingenuous 

message: Falsehood:Fahrenheit451's first actions were to get a response from Leonmon when User:Misou was repeatedly uncivil, then remedy the mediator's absense by getting a substitute mediator.--Fahrenheit451 23:04, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The finding of fact states "User:Fahrenheit451's first action on this page was to leave the mediation". The statement makes no claims about actions outside of this page. If you feel it is relevant, please provide a WP:DIFF. — Sebastian 05:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sebastian, you know as well as I what my actions on that page were as the full history is here: If you want to see diffs, you go ahead and look for them. You can spend your time on this exercise all you want to. --Fahrenheit451 (talk) 03:40, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sebastian, one other point that you should be aware of here as much as anyone:  MedCab is voluntary.  Any participant in a dispute can join or leave on their own volition for any reason.  I left because User:Misou was allowed to disrupt the mediation with repeated uncivil remarks. I left it with notification to you beforehand.  I think you should retract the false remark about my "abandonment" when as a voluntary participant, such an epithet is entirely irrelevant anyway.--Fahrenheit451 (talk) 17:54, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re: User<nowiki>:</nowiki>Fahrenheit451 abandoned the project 

message: Sebastian has referred to my case, re Adhoc as a mediator, so I might as well outline what happened in case it is of any help to anyone.
I was having issues with TheRingess, and was advised by Buddipriya to go to MedCab. I did so and Addhoc volunteered to mediate. 
June 13th: The case opened. TheRingess made her statement and I made mine, outlining three issues that were of concern to me.
21st July: Addhoc made a comment regarding one of the issues, specifically the least important one.
2nd August: Addhoc made a comment about users exercising editorial judgment, which again touched on the least important of the three issues. I did not take this as his "verdict" because it made no reference to the main issues.
Circa 31st August: Having waited for ten weeks, I asked Addhoc if the above comment was actually his "verdict". He seemed to have no idea what I was talking about and said that it looked like I should have gone to Arbitration instead of MedCab, because MedCab does not handle disputes about user conduct. I had wasted ten weeks.
Details are on:Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2007-06-13_Sardaka
Sardaka 08:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry, I can see neither the word "verdict" nor the word "arbitration" anywhere on Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2007-06-13_Sardaka. When and where did Addhoc say that? The best way to source this is by using WP:DIFFs. — Sebastian 09:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re: Addhoc

message: Sebastian, if you honestly believe that I have acted inappropriately, then you should file a request for comment. Otherwise, I suggest this entire thread is archived. Addhoc 13:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your reply! You have a point - I didn't make it clear why this is not an option. RfC is there for policy violations. But the Mediation Cabal is not (and, according to our project page, never will be) Wikipedia policy. So, there simply is no policy that says you can't hurt Mediation Cabal, even if you are a Mediation Cabal coordinator. Moreover, angry as I may be, I don't want your hands slapped. I simply want us to function as a team. — Sebastian 16:56, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Really, Sebastian?  I don't see your crusade here to conduce to teamwork whatsoever.  What I see your actions doing is tying up a few productive editors into your own wrong minded inquest.  --Fahrenheit451 (talk) 04:31, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree - this exercise isn't helpful. Addhoc (talk) 11:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll archive the page if there are no objections. Addhoc (talk) 15:49, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I'll be talking with both Addhoc and Sebastian. --Kim Bruning (talk) 04:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment by Addhoc

message: Sent mail to Addhoc and Sebastian. --Kim Bruning (talk) 02:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The cavalry. Late, as always.