Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/2008 Archive 1

Solemnity

Are you folks positivists? And why do you insist on trance-banced hollows in lieu of more concerted tallying? Thanks. GroverPennyshaft (talk) 21:20, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal Call for Western New York

I have requested mediation for Western New York. Apparently while most people seem to be agreement that Rochester and a good chunk of its metro area is considered part of Western New York, one editor has decided that it's not and will continually change the page to fit his perception. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.3.8.253 (talk) 15:52, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal coordination recall

I have always believed that people holding positions of trust should be open for recall. For that reason, my first action as an administrator was to join AOR. Being a cabal, Mediation Cabal does not have a procedure like AOR, but I would say the equivalent would be if someone in good standing, who has done good work on Mediation Cabal asks a coordinator to stand down. That just happened in my case. I am therefore stepping down from Mediation Cabal coordination. My thanks and best wishes go to all the selfless volunteers here. — Sebastian 01:05, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

BTW, we now have criteria for recall: Wikipedia:Administrators open to recall/Admin criteria. — Sebastian 08:25, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

new case notification

I have just requested mediation for Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I would also like to ask, is there any template to utilize for notifying other parties? thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 14:58, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Palestinian people

Hi. i have a new Medcab case open for Palestinian people. however, it is not showing up under new cases. Any idea why? thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 16:09, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

never mind, sorry. now it is showing up. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 16:11, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Mediator help requested

Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-07-19 Domineering Editor on Asperger Syndrome —Viriditas | Talk 20:36, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Bosnian Mujahideen

Hi, a month ago (4 Decemeber) I requested mediation for an article which I have edited (Bosnian Mujahideen). sdirrim agreed to take on the the case. However, I have not heard anything from him since 13 December despite repeated notices on his talk page. Is there perhaps another mediator who could step in? I really would like to follow through with the mediation as I believe it would be helpful but feel that it is taking too long.Osli73 (talk) 09:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Picking this up. Vassyana (talk) 09:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I've posted my reply here.Osli73 (talk) 10:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Userbox?

I don't suppose anyone's whipped up a userbox for Cabal members? atakdoug (talk) 00:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Yep, {{User medcab}} which look like this:

This user was a volunteer mediator in the Mediation Cabal before it was closed.

Addhoc (talk) 01:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. When we get a mediation case about the box war, I will have to recuse myself... atakdoug (talk) 22:06, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I'm pretty sure the box war is far beyond medcab ... - Revolving Bugbear 22:13, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Eh? We were in the thick of it. --Kim Bruning (talk) 01:09, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Why aspiring?--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 20:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't the userbox give the game away a bit? What happens if you want to go undercover? :-P --Kim Bruning (talk) 12:34, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• How about an alternate version

There is no Mediation Cabal and this user isn't in it.

--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 17:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

For convenience, the call for this is: {{User:Doug/User medcab}}, in case anyone is interested.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 22:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Where are the closed cases going?

I see archives through part of 2006 and then . . . it just stops. Did we stop archiving when we started using a category? Seems like we should explain that somewhere.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 20:25, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Have a look at Category:Wikipedia Medcab closed cases.--Addhoc (talk) 00:07, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Right, I saw that, but it isn't explained. Maybe, I'll add a note regarding coverage.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 17:18, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Cool! :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 17:32, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

 Done also noticed that the category had a TOC that had to be manually updated. Not sure if that could be improved on, but I brought it to date.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 04:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Can I help?

In the past i was informed that I am not to attempt to mediate. Is there anything else I can do or can this be lifted?

Geoff Plourde (talk) 06:26, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe this is the comment your refering to Wikipedia_talk:Mediation_Committee/Archive_6#Character_Traits. This is the Mediation Cabal WP:MEDCAB, your thinking of the Mediation Committee WP:MEDCOM. MBisanz ^talk 06:31, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

No, under the pseudonym Geo.plrd, I was specifically told by Ideogram and Addhoc that I may not mediate MEDCAB cases.

Geoff Plourde (talk) 19:22, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, that makes sense then why I didn't see it in your history. For anyone joining the conversation, these threads User_talk:Geo.plrd#MedCab, [1] would be what is going on. I"d suggest asking the coordinators directly, maybe describing your reasons by email. MBisanz ^talk 04:21, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

What were the circumstances of this, I can't tell from the threads.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 06:18, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Due to a personal situation, I was unable to get on Wikipedia which resulted in the case I was mediating degenerating to the point of Arbcom. When I was secure I was informed by Ideogram and Addhoc that I was not allowed to mediate. Also from what I remember Ideogram made it clear that I was not to particpate in any way shape or form.

While I understand completely if you do not want me mediating, is there anything else I can do to help say on the admin end? Geoff Plourde (talk) 07:23, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, the decision that you shouldn't mediate was taken by the coordinators in 2006, and this was based on several cases being mishandled. Since becoming a coordinator in 2007, I have advised the situation hasn't changed. Regarding your query, about any other help, not at the moment, thanks. Addhoc (talk) 10:19, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. Could I then be allowed to tag along with other mediators and see how to mediate properly? Geoff Plourde (talk) 00:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I would prefer if you didn't. Addhoc (talk) 11:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I hate to question the coordinator when I'm so new to this WP:DR venue myself, but this thread seems to confuse the informality and unofficial nature of MedCab (and to an outsider would seem to prove that there is in fact a cabal, all kidding aside). I have concerns about an editor being told he or she is not welcome to mediate or can't mediate at MedCab. If the editor has neglected cases in the past, the editor should be encouraged to co-mediate cases; if the editor has mishandled cases in the past, the editor should be encouraged to co-mediate with or at least shadow an experienced mediator. Otherwise, unless there's an ArbCom decision against this user, I don't see how we can justify this position. --Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 05:29, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Doug, I haven't said that he can't be involved in other aspects of the dispute resolution process. He could for example demonstrate relevant skills by offering a third opinion. Alternatively of course, you could take a case, and he could discuss the case with you, perhaps by email. Addhoc (talk) 11:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

So basically, you don't want me to be affiliated with MedCab in any way? Geoff Plourde (talk) 06:32, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

• Addhoc, I agree entirely regarding this editor getting more experience and I would be happy to take a case and have this user along - since I raised the issue.  :-\ My real concern though is that you have stated that there was a decision by the prior coordinators and that you've been advised that the situation hasn't changed. I suspect that what is really meant is more along the lines of: "Your prior work here (or neglect thereof) was actually disruptive to the project, would you kindly continue to refrain from mediating so we don't have to seek formal sanctions" - if so, that's fine but we should be clear about that. Otherwise it sounds like the prior coordinators have made a ruling of some sort from some power unknown to coordinators on any other project to restrict an editor in ways that ordinarily only ArbCom injunctions or other WP:Bans can do.

• It seems to me very important that we remember what we say on these pages: "There are no official members" and "To become a mediator, just pick a case from the list under "Cases needing mediators" on the MedCab main page, add yourself as a mediator, and go!" These are both very important to this project's continued existence. If we act like we can exclude someone, then we do have members, in which case there really is a cabal and it must be crushed. If the coordinators act like they can exclude someone by themselves it is the responsibility of the rest of us to start looking for suitable trout.  :-) --Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 07:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Having members doesn't necessarily make a group a cabal as you inferred above. Daniel (talk) 11:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, however we clearly state that we don't have members and the idea of members for projects has been questioned several times at WT:COUNCIL for precisely this reason. At WT:COUNCIL the discussion has always resolved to the effect that members has it's downside but no-one here really means that anyone is excluded - they just mean participants who feel like adding their names - in essence, those aren't direct quotations. The point being we can't exclude people, it's not in the spirit of Wikipedia or this project to do so.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 08:27, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, people can feel free to help out, but if they really really screw up, they can be asked to kindly not to come back. On the other hand, I think it's very nice of you to offer to help Geoff out. Note that Medcab coordinators are typically picked for their ability to Know What They Are Doing, so before you try this, DO first e-mail with Addhoc, so that you at least know what you are getting into. --Kim Bruning (talk) 08:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC) And of course there's a cabal! It says in the title of the page, right? ;-)

 Done - A very good idea (e-mail), not sure why I never thought of that. I realize that Addhoc has a pretty good idea what's going on, more so than I, just hoping to have it explained a bit - facts and/or procedure.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 14:17, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, checking Geoff's user page... that's interesting. Well, I'll still leave it to Doug and Addhoc what they want to do. :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 08:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• Yeah, I haven't left a post there yet b/c I was waiting for a response here, though I suppose I've committed myself so I ought to communicate that to this editor. Good point.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 14:17, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• • I've discussed this matter to my satisfaction with Addhoc and I'm following up with the editor on his talk page.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 00:50, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

without having done any admin, it seems clear to me that no single editor can permanently disclude another editor from being involved in any project. This seems really anti-wikipedian to me. I think all involved should re-consider their positions. Help this individual to contribute positively. step13thirteen 90.192.179.224 (talk) 03:56, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

No single editor has done anything. The situation wasn't very clear. Under this user's prior username, he left Wikipedia in lieu of what would likely have been a community ban on participating in WP:DR. The editor has returned under a new username, identified himself, admitted his mistakes, and agreed to voluntary probation.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 04:50, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

a case of a another editor constantly focusing on me as a contributor in talk

Is this the right place to bring such a complaint? I would like the behaviour to stop and am very willing to negotiate.--scuro (talk) 06:19, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I see that nobody has responded to your question, and it does deserve an answer.

The general guidance is found at Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution, and that page should be reviewed. However, I will make my own description of the process for convenience. I'm not an expert in initiating it dispute process, because I've never done it beyond baby steps (or more serious direct but impersonal steps like filing a Checkuser request), and I have never been the target of a formal complaint. (But lots of informal ones, I could cook my kids' hot dogs on them.)

The first step would be to attempt to work it out with the editor involved, and probably doing this on a User Talk page would be one place to start that would avoid filling up the article Talk page with argument. Remember that most users will not respond well to being called offensive names, so I'd recommend against linking WP:DICK or WP:GIANTDICK as part of this. Let somebody else do that if they think it appropriate. Further, before trying to change the behavior of the other editor, it could be useful to very closely examine your own; I'd suggest seeking help with this from other editors. You mention that this editor "focuses on you as a contributor." Is there something about the way you are contributing that could be causing a problem? What does he actually say about you? Some questions: is it accurate? What happens if it is inaccurate and you point that out? Does he ignore this and simply pile on more? And is it related to the editorial process, or is it purely personal attack? (For example, if an editor is improperly reverting other edits, and doing it frequently in a way that seems to be protecting the article against POV balance, certainly other editors may comment on this behavior. If an editor is rude to another, a third editor might comment as an intervention and, if the first editor denies being rude, or ignores the underlying cause and treats the warning or admonishment as an "attack," this can sometimes escalate rapidly. As has been noted in WP:WPA, to claim that another editor is "personally attacking" you can sometimes be a "personal attack." Other times it is simply stating the fact, and might be necessary. To tease it all out, get help. It is really hard, in the middle of a dispute which has become personal for one or both parties or sides, to figure out, alone, what is right and wise and what is simply adrenalin or, for some of us, testosterone.

Then there would be the generic advice he would be likely to get on various noticeboards (posting on which could be appropriate if this thing escalates): Assume Good Faith, take a deep breath, ask "How important is it?" -- but, I know, when it seems you are dealing with a fire-breathing dragon from Hell, an editor dedicated to trashing your reputation, character, morality, intelligence, and mental stability, it can be pretty difficult. If this is the case, you are going to need something more than direct negotiation and sitting meditation, and Wikipedia will encourage you to take it step by step. First question to ask, is the house actually on fire? Do you need to call 911? (I.e., is this user about to bring down the entire web site with his misbehavior, or result immediate and irreparable damage to something of value?). How seriously will other people take the ravings of this lunatic?

Or, on the other hand, could it be that he is correct? Most people will need a lot of help to examine this other possibility. After all, how could that ***hole, that ****ing idiot, be right? Can pigs fly?

I did once ask advice of a neutral and knowledgeable party at Wikipedia:Editor assistance; in that case the editor responded by directly warning the user, which is not what I asked for, though it seemed to work, for a while. Another approach that might be useful would be to try to identify a user familiar with both of you, whom you both might respect, and ask for advice. You may ask for advice from any other editor, but I would recommend asking someone with substantial experience.

Then there is Wikiquette alerts. I've never followed this page, but if you proceed step-by-step in dispute, gradually escalating if it seems necessary, and show good faith on your part in trying to resolve the conflict at the lowest possible level, you will likely be more successful with each succeeding step. There should be no fear about requesting help at WQA.

Beyond that there is RFC, specifically users Request comment on users, which starts to be serious business. Before taking this step, read the linked page carefully. It is not uncommon for a user filing an RFC to end up blocked, and editor behavior, including that of the one requesting comment, at this point, may come under intense scrutiny, both immediately in the RFC, and later at Arbitration if it comes to that. RFC and the next steps can consume inordinate amounts of editor time, and there can be some serious disapproval expressed, backed up by action from people with block buttons on their user interface, at the waste of time involved in dealing with editors who have refused to appropriately compromise at a simpler and easier level, and this cuts both ways (or in all directions.)

Then there is WP:Mediation Cabal (the project page here), which is a step that is sometimes skipped, because it can be very time-consuming and I have seen mediators sit on a case for a month, just because they were busy elsewhere. Mediation is not binding, but editor actions in Mediation (including any refusal to mediate if it is requested) might be considered later if it goes to Arbitration.

And, almost at the end of the process, there is the Arbitration Committee. Don't even think about it unless you have exhausted all other approaches. But Arbitration is routinely considered binding, i.e., violation of ArbComm decisions is a quick way to be blocked.

And, finally, if there is really some actionable libel going on, you can complain directly to the owner of Wikipedia, the Wikimedia Foundation, which can act directly and immediately to avoid liability on the part of Wikipedia for hosting libel against you. Legal threats, though, can get you promptly blocked.

I hope this is helpful. --Abd (talk) 21:20, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

The ultimate irony...the editor who spends far too much energy commenting on me as a contributor...is the only one to reply to my question and comments on me once again. Doh!!! It's not too late Abd...stay on content on the talk pages and we can both move on.--scuro (talk) 04:38, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

That was not a comment on this user; if it was, I'd appreciate it being pointed out to me. I wrote a generic response, it was not designed for nor was it tailored to this specific user.--Abd (talk) 08:19, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Could you please give some examples? Seddon69 (talk) 20:04, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Volunteering

It's been suggested that I might be able to help in some disputes. Full disclosure does require my mentioning that I do have a mediation request (Code Pink) in the process.

Why do I think I might be qualified? Well, I have two cats, but, for the house as a whole, there are 15 cats (3 being new kittens), 5 dogs, and a rescued squirrel. At the very least, twice a day, when it is time to give out the Wet Disgusting Cat Food, I indeed herd cats.

More seriously, in various past events where I did mediate, I found one of the first priorities was finding anything, no matter how small, about which the parties agreed. That point of agreement might be, in Wikipedia terms, a "coatrack", but often it's more of an oil spot that spreads out over troubled waters, calming larger areas. (this is figurative; I don't think oil spills are terribly good for most environments).

I do have knowledge in an assortment of areas; please look at my userpage for some relevant areas.

Mediation sometimes is frustrating, and I accept that that what may be the most achievable thing is to leave the parties somewhat unhappy, but aware that all are equally unhappy with the solution and agree no one was given an advantage. It's far more satisfying, of course, when the parties can find a way to work together in a constructive way.

Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 22:19, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Id say wait till after this case then feel free to join. This will prevent any conflict of interest. :) hope that helps. Seddon69 (talk) 00:04, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I would respectfully disagree with Seddon69. Anyone can take a case here anytime, with one apparent exception above, but that's a special case. You don't need to apply nor do you need to be approved. Obviously you shouldn't be involved in any case or with any editors with whom you've had a problem in the past, especially one that came here. But I don't see why having a case in mediation and being a mediator would cause any issue on MedCab, this is an informal process. Although different from WP:WQA, it is worth noting that that process seems to encourage editors to take cases even while they have cases pending - though it doesn't say as much. --Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 05:15, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Thats a fair and accurate point Doug. I just thought that it would be better for a case if it could have as much of an editors attention as possible without having a distraction that often takes as much time as trying to mediate a case yourself. But like doug said, i cant see any reason for you not to mediate another case. Seddon69 (talk) 11:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Can we come up with a way to stop people from debating on MedCab before the case is open?

I notice that in a lot of cases (I'll give examples if anyone needs them - but they seem too common to bother referencing to me) the parties begin arguing on the MedCab page before a mediator ever arrives to open the case. Often the argument is more about "how dumb this is that you've taken this issue to this level you bozo" or worse, rather than even being a discussion of the merits. Since we often have a backlog, right now for example, are there any ideas on how to avoid this? My only thoughts would be to change the process so that there is no link from the article talk page to here until a mediator opens the case, but that would probably require more work for mediators. An alternative might be to change the template so that it has an area for the parties to accept mediation, as some mediators use regularly, but eliminate the discussion section or comment it out, leaving it to the mediator to start it up.

I would note too that the Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Suggestions_for_mediators page suggests starting out on the article's talk page without declaring oneself as a mediator. I've tried this before, but it's really difficult because usually everybody knows that the issue is with MedCab and they're all waiting for a mediator. It also creates the problem that no other mediators know you're involved because if you open the case and put your name on it you certainly can't play the incognito game. Sure that's not a big deal but with a backlog most mediators probably aren't really looking to double up unless it's to mentor a new mediator.

Thoughts?--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 19:10, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

How about encouraging people to contact the medcab more discretely somehow? (like per e-mail to a coordinator, for instance) --Kim Bruning (talk) 20:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Personally I was a tad more fond if the past when people just came and make a case page on their own and generally it was the mediator's job to inform the other parties about the case. The new system of putting a template on a talk page does seem more convenient for the mediator, though. Kim's idea is also nice, but like I said, would involve more work (but perhaps for more benefit?) Cowman109^Talk 20:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

These both sound like good ideas. My suggestions above wouldn't really do anything except avoid the clutter to the MedCab case page. In one case I asked parties to hold off on the back and forth because the referring party hadn't really completed his or her request yet and so they just started point by point heated discussion on the article talk page, without any real attempt to calm down. They eventually all refused mediation. I'm not sure how Kim's idea would work in practice, would the coordinator assign the cases or would they still get posted here somewhere?--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 21:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I guess direct e-mail to the coordinators, or maybe creating a few "Clerks" to handle the requests, might work. It would probably help if arbitrators indicated particular fields in which they considered themselves competent, and whether they're willing to take on a case or not at that point. Then maybe the current top name on the list of "qualified" mediators get's sent a message or e-mail discretely? Or would more "formal" and transparent methods be preferred? But, to answer the question about arguments heating up while waiting for mediation, I think probably the only thing that could be done to guarantee that would be to protect the pages in question. If it is a hot argument, I doubt the combatants would cool down while waiting for a mediator. John Carter (talk) 21:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

No, no! We don't want that! (page protection). I realize discussions may continue or heat up in any case, that's not the issue - it's that they heat up and sometimes move to the MedCab case page simply because the case page exists and there is a tag on the article talk page telling people "hey, I'm asking for MedCab to get involved and if you click on this link you'll see a one-sided list of the problems here". So everyone shows up, there is no mediator, and they just start gunning - on the issues, on editor character, and on whether it should be at MedCab at all. Sometimes, if a mediator had been there, he or she would have quickly said, "this is a content issue, you need a WP:3O or WP:RFC not this place" and closed out the discussion.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 21:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

The e-mail would be a good idea except that there are no "qualified" mediators, nor members, from which to generate a mailing list.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 22:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

As one of their "tasks", coordinators should have some idea about who is around and who is free and able to do some mediating. In fact, that's one of the main reasons coordinators were needed in the first place. O:-)

Also, perhaps we could standardly ask the question "what do you think others will expect as a compromise from you?", which might have interesting effects. (It's better to have people arguing about the answer to that question than just about any other, I'll wager). --Kim Bruning (talk) 11:32, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I claim no responsibility for my bad humour.[2] Vassyana (talk) 11:59, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Playing devil's advocate: I don't necessarily think that the arguing on the case pages is all bad. I understand the concern about it, but it's just a continuation of existing disputes and can be useful to the volunteer taking the case. It certainly provides a snapshot of the users involved and their interactions with each other. It could also be contended that it's better for the bickering to occur on a MedCab case page, rather than further cluttering the article talk page. The case pages can always be refactored and/or archived to clear away the dross. Just some thoughts from the other side of the coin. Cheers! Vassyana (talk) 12:03, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I wonder if we can get people to argue for the enemy even. "No my dear sir, I insist, after you!", "No! After you! I must insist my good man!" O:-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 13:38, 14 February 2008 (UTC) One can dream, right?

The problem that I see is that they are arguing unmediated often about the very fact that there is a mediation. I had one recently where we couldn't mediate because the referrant posted the tag on the article talk page before he or she had the case page all filled out. We couldn't start without all the info, but the parties were arguing about whether mediation was proper. Before we could start all of the other parties had conferred on user talk pages and agreed not to participate.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 01:11, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

That's not so much a problem with people arguing on the case page, as it is a situation where mediation isn't viable because all parties don't agree to it. It happens, most often when some editors feel that mediation requests are being, or going to be, used as a soapbox or another avenue of forum shopping. As MedCab, there's not much that can be done about such situations. However, a volunteer who encounters such a case could still intervene as a outside party to help the disputant reach consensus and/or file an RfC to solicit further outside input. Vassyana (talk) 05:15, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

By the by, if you're going to take the discreet route, don't be shy about dropping myself and/or Addhoc (or really any experienced MedCabber) an email asking us to adopt the case or close it without prejudice to reopening. Either way, we could mark the case "on hold", based on the fact that someone is already attempting to resolve the issue. The case page editing becomes a maintenance action by a coordinator or experienced volunteer. Thoughts? Vassyana (talk) 05:26, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

That's not a bad solution to that part of the issue. But then, I'd still think the tag on the page might cause a problem. --Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 08:31, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Waterboarding

Well, the ArbCom has decided not to decide (which is what many of us expected) and put the article on probation Waterboarding. The discussion on the talk page continues, into the I don't know which repetition of the same arguments, around and around, getting hotter and hotter. Is it possible that someone from this non-existent Cabal could lend us a hand? If so, help, please, (here, there, my talk page, or email me.) Thanks, htom (OtterSmith) htom (talk) 05:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Are editors on both sides willing to actually discuss the issues or just through vituperation back and forth?--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 04:53, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Since an RfM has now been requested (and it looks to be going down in flames)... thank you for your kind reply, but it appears that your help on this issue would be wasted at this time. Please help some other article's editors, and thank you. htom (talk) 07:34, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Sassanid Empire infobox?

Not that familiar with this process, but thought I'd give it a try before going for administrative intervention on the issue with the Sassanid Empire infobox, which has a map that is in dispute. It appears to be taking quite a while to get someone to look at it, though. Is there a reason for that? Could something be done to improve the case log so that it is easier to take on? Thanks. Larry Dunn (talk) 20:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Responding at Larry Dunn's talk page.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 00:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Also responding at Larry Dunn's talk. Xavexgoem (talk) 01:04, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Janez Drnovsek

(cur) (last) 23:26, 29 February 2008 Tone (Talk | contribs) m (Protected Janez Drnovšek: constant reverting by an anonymous user despite warnings [edit=autoconfirmed:move=autoconfirmed] (expires 23:26, 29 March 2008 (UTC))

Please unblock me. I am not anonymous, left my name in the history, and responded to the talk page. As a personal friend and interviewer of Dr. Janez Drnovsek it was his wish to have his writings included in wikipedia after he passed. They are representative of the reasons for his'change in lifestyle' and I give attribution. The above user blocks them, as well as Dr. Drnovsek's final blog (despite my request for creating a separate quote section), thus denying many people (55,000 signed the book of condolence on the internet) a fuller and relevant picture of the President. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.232.26 (talk • contribs)

You weren't blocked; the page was protected. The protection appears to be more in an attempt of allowing users to speak with you rather than simply preventing you from editing the encyclopedia altogether (which a block would do). As an uninvolved third party, I also feel your edits are rather inappropriate. They serve to portray the subject of the article in an unnecessarily non-neutral sounding light. Your edits read as though they are praising him. I would recommend that you just let the article be; when users are involved in such a manner in an article usually there is a subconscious bias we are not aware of and have difficulty avoiding (see WP:COI) which conflicts with the goal of the encyclopedia. Does that clear things up a bit? Cowman109^Talk 05:52, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Filing requests...

I've noticed a tendency for editors to get uncivil or engage in personal attacks when they're filing the request, immediately poisoning the well for other editors in the dispute. I think Doug was mentioning problems like this above. Do you think it is right for a mediator to see a new or open case to rewrite the request? Are there other options? I have told some requesters to rewrite the request, but they might be away, or might disagree.

It's interesting, because writing these requests is proof of needing mediation, while at the same time looking like mediation is certainly not going to work to many parties. Xavexgoem (talk) 05:22, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

FYROM vs. Republic of Macedonia

Currently I am in a reversion ping-pong about the correct name to use in an article on National Bank of Greece. I don't think this is situation that is amenable to mediation because it reflects an ongoing dispute between Greece and the Republic of Macedonia. So, what should we do? Acad Ronin (talk) 21:43, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Hm. Does it matter? Just my opinion is to just leave it be - it's not like the article will be damaged if it's just left however until the naming dispute is settled, as it's silly to edit war over such trivial things. A reader will know what you're talking about either way. Cowman109^Talk 00:28, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I just don't like to see bullies win. Acad Ronin (talk) 17:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Editor problem

Hi all - hope you can help with this. I've been approached as an admin by User:Peter Shearan over problems with an editor, User: Kentem. Kentem makes controversial edits to articles about places in southeast England, including frequent splits of articlesinto a large number of subarticles. Normally, this would be a simple mediation matter, but of Kentem's 1500+ edits, only 60 have been to talk pages, and s/he never once seems to have responded to someone else's comment (all those 60 edits are new sections/new comments) - as such, I can' work out how or where to list concerns in the disputes process pages. Basically, we've got an editor working against the consensus of other editors, who refuses to discuss matters at all. Some indication of the scope of the problem can be seen from User_talk:Kentem, which is full of AFD/prod notices and queries as to edits - none of which has been answered. Technically, s/he's not doing anything which warrants a block, but it's becoming quite disruptive. Any suggestions/help would be appreciated! Grutness...wha? 23:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Have attempts been made to speak with the user at his talk page? That's usually a place to start.. Cowman109^Talk 00:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh nevermind, it does look like there have been a few. I saw only the warning templates which don't really provoke much of a response from the receiver, heh. It looks like no one has asked the user to stop, though.. no one just went out and asked them to discuss, so I would say try speaking with him directly again.. and if he doesn't respond, perhaps take it to WP:AN where a large group of editors will become aware of the situation and give their opinions on it. Cowman109^Talk 00:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

If the editor isn't responding, MedCab (indeed, mediation) can't really help much. Perhaps a small block (or raising at ANI if you feel you're involved) may help prevent further disruption and also cause the user to stop and reconsider. If that doesn't work, ANI/taking it further up the DR tree. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 01:04, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

New item

Israeli-Palestinian conflict has been edit-protected. I'm not filing a fiormal medcab request, but it wouldn't hurt to have someone keep an eye there, and perhaps add a neutral viewpoint. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 15:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:MEDCAB & WP:3O streamlining

After discussion with many people off wiki about this subject i felt it would be a good idea to see if there is widespread consensus for this to happen. These two methods of dispute resolution are similar but differ mainly in that 3O deals with disputes between two editors and MEBCAB deals with multiple editors. I felt that the referral between these two groups should be streamlined to allow quicker referral from one to the other. Although this does exist in the form or a suggestion on the WP:3O page and there is no such suggestion on the MEDCAB page. What i am proposing is a direct referral process, so that what multi party disputes posted at WP:3O can be quickly and efficiently be passed on to WP:MEDCAB and vice versa with regards to 2 party disputes. Given that most content disputes 99.99% of the time have to go through MEDCAB before going on to MEDCOM it seems a sensible idea. This could happen by the referral by the cabalists and 3O contributers themselves with a message on the parties concerned informing them of the referral. Seddon69 (talk) 18:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC) _{message also posted at 3O and dispute resolution}

People weren't doing this already? :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 01:50, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I would think so. Besides, there is some difference in philosophy between mediation and a third opinion - it's generally more mediation-esque to try to get the editors to solve the problem. In a third opinion one is being asked "Hey neutral, what do you think?" and the opinion becomes part of the substantive discussion history. More useful, I think, would be a vetting process that sent civility disputes to WP:WQA or WP:RFCU and content disputes to WP:3O or here; but any such process would just add another layer and probably wouldn't work in practice.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 04:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I find that it is far more often for a case to come to medcab after an (inevitably) failed RfC. Many of the cases that come here actually appear to be a 3O, which imo is part of the problem: we already have a 3O, and people aren't using it! Part of this is puppet paranoia (tm), so medcab still has its uses. But I do suggest we place 3O waaay higher on the DP process before a requester files a medcab ...file. Xavexgoem (talk) 06:50, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

{{sofixit}}? O:-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 10:37, 13 March 2008 (UTC) what else are cabals for? ;-)

I went ahead and mentioned 3O and RfC in Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/howto. At the same time, I've also "loosened up" the language and instructions to some degree. We are after all informal and generally encourage tongues to go in cheeks on occasion. :) Vassyana (talk) 12:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I was also bold and changed the DR template.[3] Vassyana (talk) 12:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with that change, anything that creates more links between the various DR mechanisms and clarifies the relationships is a good thing.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 13:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Though, if a medcab mediator wants to take a 2 person case, they shouldn't not be able to. ;-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 01:07, 16 March 2008 (UTC) talk about double negatives :-p

Help me!, i am looking for an advocate wikipedia is making me feel nervous

Hi, i am having a such big trouble and i am being victim of harrassment, false accusations, personal attacks and treats to be banned. I have came back from a brief break and since AMA is gone i dont know who may be my advocate. I really need help. I am sorry my english is not fairly good, but i would be pleased to give full details on my discussion page. =( --HappyApple (talk) 08:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

It would help if you would point to this harassment - just to make it easier for people to try and sort things out. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 08:43, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, i want to make an statement the shortest way possible in order to find an advocate because i really need one.

First of all, i pledge to ask for assistance and the help of an advocate (like i asked for one in AMA back in 2006). And i know this can be a very unconvencional request, but, I am looking for an advocate in another language wikipedia. (The spanish version)

Why is that?. The reason for, is because, one user who is currently an administrator (named Dodo) (in spanish wikipedia) is abusing blatantly of his power.

Examples of this behavior can be seen here. Where here had publicly admited he mocks and punishes innocents. And also admitted he has friends there who support this. In the same thread.

He has harrassed me (and ridiculed me- arguing that i use demagogy to defend myself) he had treat me many times today and even blocked a discussion page of a friend of mine, to avoid further communication with him, it has to be noted that he shares the same problem as me.

I also want to let know, the user in question had went to Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee (on the spanish version) 17 times.

He publicly admited on his blog he likes to bite newcomers, and i quote from here and translated from spanish, "ya de paso los editores novatos (a los que se mete en este mismo grupo para que vayan acostumbrándose a ser mordisqueados)".- > "And i can't stand newbies (which they had to get used to be bitten)"

It has to be known this: try to look for assistance in spanish wikipedia (mediation cabal there) is very useless. Cabal mediators there, they are not available all the time and they have bias towards the administrators (which are named librarians there). Most of them act like a circle of friends who protect themselves, and it is very frustrating, someone like me, can't do anything to stop this. I really need help.!

This is something really serious i wish someone could help me with that.

I dont know what i can do to solve this problem, whether contact jimbo. I just dont know. I asked for help in my user's page on english wikipedia and they said, if i had a dispute i could come here to find a solution. --HappyApple (talk) 10:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmm...for a start I've contaced Dodo to see what he has to say on this. I should point out that some of the comments look like they were main in jest...we shall see. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 10:31, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

AMA was replaced. :-) Sounds like a job for editor assistance? --Kim Bruning (talk) 10:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I want to remark this. Some minutes after this message was posted on mediation cabal. My account in spanish wikipedia was blocked by one of Dodo's friends named Petronas. This act can be intepretated as uncivil?. I am not sure about it. But that really makes me feel very aware of editing in spanish wikipedia. (I would say frightening).

I suspect, Dodo is taking some sort of revenge in his own sphere.--HappyApple (talk) 12:09, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I also want to remark, as spanish translation this:

(desactivada la creación de cuentas, correo electrónico deshabilitado) durante un plazo de "3 días". ‎ (Sucesivas faltas de respeto, broncas, actitud hostil, etc.)

(Account blocked, disabled mail) for 3 days. (Reason: uncivil behavior, inciting fight, hostil attitude). And i want to remark all of such words are false, as my intention here was to look for help and seek for an appropiate solution And just minutes before being banned i also warned the situation to Dihydrogen Monoxide which can be seen here.

I want to ask for let be it on the record that, this act constitutes as an another example of the abuse of power of Dodo and his friends (as he is an administrator on spanish wikipedia). --HappyApple (talk) 12:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Harrumph. Does Dodo speak English? (probably does, but I gotta ask :-) ) --Kim Bruning (talk) 17:01, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't look like you were blocked for anything here. This edit seems like it may be the cause of the problems, as you are approaching Dodo a bit aggressively. Is there any sort of group similar to the arbitration committee on the Spanish wikipedia? Cowman109^Talk 20:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, there's the Comité de resolución de conflictos. Realistically it doesn't look like there is much that can be done here, as there appears to be enough processes in place in the Spanish wikipedia to deal with such a problem if it exists.. Cowman109^Talk 20:37, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

And nevermind, it does look like your edits here were a factor in their decision, as they were accusing you have defaming them on other Wikipedias.. Though like I said, your best option is to probably create a case for the Comité de resolución de conflictos, yes? You also contributed to the escalating situation by continuing to edit Dodo's discussion page when he asked you not to, which probably did not help either. Cowman109^Talk 20:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, if people deny letting people talk to them, a conflict will escalate naturally. :-/

Hmmm.... more in general, I wonder if any med-cab member here speaks spanish? --Kim Bruning (talk) 21:09, 13 March 2008 (UTC) Are you thinking what I'm thinking, pinky?

Hi, i want to make things clear before proceed in the discussion. First (to Cowman109) I want to remark since the beginning of the discussion with the user in question, he attempted to treat me, and this can be seen here. I must say that all the time I tried to remain calm and i insisted that it would be better if he also could calm down, like seen here. But on his reply he publicly admited that he is bad and likes to mock and bullying defenseless users like seen here [4].

But since his attitude towards me was also hostile, i decided to disengage from the chat (final words), so my final decision was to come here. As i feel, mediation cabal in spanish wikipedia it is not working well at all. Comments are open. (I must say since my request to lift up the blockade against me had failed where user Kordas (admin) said i am being disruptive and making for myself a personal crusade just because i decided to look here for assistance and help). Considered such reasons, i felt I have no opportunity to solve this problem on spanish wikipedia. I repeat. Any suggestions? --HappyApple (talk) 21:31, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Like i said, as of March 13, i dont have an advocate nor user who may suggest me what to do next (although i am thinking about Kim Brunning suggestion).

However, for now, i am sure that i wouldn't dare to come back to spanish wikipedia (as i feel things have scalated in some sort of a major dispute). Maybe i could place an entry in Editor assistance (here) but since this could be interpretated as an act of defamation, my blockade could be extended for long period of time (on spanish wikipedia). (p.d. , i wish i could also open mediation in spanish wikipedia, but, unfortunatelly i cant since i am blocked from editing there). Like i said in the beginning of this thread.

I suspect the user in question is using his adminship powers to justify himself. And i just have one more question. If he wants to solve problems in good manners and civil, why does he have a blog were he suggests, newcomers should get used to be bitten? Dodo's personal blog. --HappyApple (talk) 21:37, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

But can the Comité de resolución de conflictos help? Is it essentially the Arbitration Committee here? I would hope there is some sort of higher power that serves as a check on the administrators to make sure nothing bad happens..

Es el Comité de resolución y el arbitration committee en el wikipedia inglés la misma cosa? No entiendo porque no puedes pedir a ellos que te ayuden..? Me parece que lo mejor que puedes hacer es esperar por los dias y ir a ellos, a menos que haya algo que no puedo entender? En la wikipedia inglés el arbitration committee tiene más poder que los admins y tiene otro luego en el jerarquía si quieres decirlo en esta manera.. basicamente ellos no son en el mismo 'lado' de los admins, entonces no deberían... side(?) con ellos. Cowman109^Talk 21:56, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

For the record, last night (around the time of my last comments) I left a note on Dodo's es talk page. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 22:05, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry if it sounds a little bit rude but... does this discussion make sense? I mean, it's obviously a little bit patronizing to discuss about issues from other Wikipedia in here. I thought other wikipedias were totally independent of the English one. We're not affiliates of this, nor subordinates... so I can't see the point of wikipedists from another wikipedia coming to interfere in the internal procedures of the Spanish wikipedia. Am I wrong? --Ecemaml (talk) 22:33, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Except from Ecemaml comments (as i feel he wants to move discussion to another topic, which is not the case, whether if is appropiate to settle down disputes here from interwiki conflicts).

Basically the point is. On spanish wikipedia, the so called "arbitration committee" has been subject of heated debates whether if its decisions are accurate or not (biased decisions).

And many admins are friends themselves, in some sort of circle, if they see one of them has gone to arbitration they would not ban or block him (biased behavior toward fellow members). (I feel very upset how they tend to act like a Show trial).

I can't say my voice isn't being listened at all, on spanish wikipedia (a mediator there es:usuario:Analiza has expressed against the blockade against me [5]) however he had to attend many issues (the number of advocated there is very limited.) (it has to be noted a similar case happened to another user who believed in good faith and laws in spanish wikipedia,asked for a resolution in "comite de resolucion" but after his request, he was blocked. (request) aftermath

Since recent events, i really have frowned down any chances of getting a fair solution to this dispute via spanish wikipedia. (Like, i said in the beginning of this thread), i know it may sound like an unconventional request (as i see interwiki affairs usually tend to be settled down in their respective sites), but, i would think on english wikipedia i could get better chances to let my voice be heard by a broader audience. (And there is just a question left on the air; Should be considered english wikipedia is a sinonym of the ICJ for inter wiki abuses among other affairs?) .

Maybe i am missunderstanding things but, as the first project which spanned to inter language wikis (en - version), it could be deduced this place is the were to go when you are not sure what to do if your voice is not being heard?. (It should be noted, that at this point i feel i am subject of being red taped, persecution from Dodo and his colleagues, as recent events (being blocked, being stalked and accused falsely of sabotage). per see, he protected disscusion page from a fellow user who shared the same problem as i did as i tried to keep in touch with him explaining my case in a polite way. And i have been warned to avoid using my own discussion page at spanish wikipedia to avoid let me to keep in touch with other users or ask for help. (treat and warning to avoid using my personal discussion page)

It could be easy for me to walk away from spanish project and settle down here on english version (which at least i had met good pals and so on, and also contribuited with great articles, or at least i did my best, per see Hwacha and electrochemistry), but the point is: I dont think it is civil to walk away just because someone seems to act like bullying you. (personal comment) Am i expressing myself correctly.? I do not often use english as a way to communicate everyday. But i want to place a request for an advocate (the request is open) with interwiki accounts or with enough experience on this kind of affairs to let me solve this dispute.

There is a pending statement, "this is not a personal cruzade for myself" nor a "defaming act" or anything like this. Like i said in the beginning, i asked for assistance at my discussion page and they suggested me to come here and explain my case, as AMA was gone (which it seems i am starting to miss).--HappyApple (talk) 23:25, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Take it easy. Breathe! It looks like people are picking up the case. :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 01:00, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I have to state that both Ecemaml and Dodo are particularly famous in the Spanish Wikipedia for their constant abuses against other wikipedians. I do have to notify that on Dodo's order HappyApple has being blocked for 3 days. Messhermit (talk) 02:33, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Could you prove that? Have you been abused or maybe it's the other way around? Why do you come here to libel other wikipedians? Would you dare to do it in the Spanish Wikipedia? I mean, if I'm famous because of my "constant abuses", maybe you could appeal the arbitration committee... otherwise, your statement is yet another personal attack (not the first, BTW). Ecemaml (talk) 08:15, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's on spanish though. We *could* look there, maaayyyybe, but first up, Are there any issues on en? --Kim Bruning (talk) 03:32, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

As far as i can see, there are no any disputes on English wikipedia. Most of the previous paragraph was based on facts happened on Spanish one. By the way?, is it sure?, Did someone has picked up my case?. who is it? --HappyApple (talk) 05:24, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

All this issue sounds very strange to me. Apart from the fact that Dodo apparently is not registered here, the statements of HappyApple have a clear defamation character. For example, (s)he has misquoted Dodo's blog: in this entry he makes a point against using the "readers are dumb" fallacy in many discussions. HappyApple cries claims that Dodo said "he likes to bite newcomers", but he only said that users using that fallacy use to include newcomers in the group of dumb readers. The translation given by HappyApple is wrong: "[en efecto, los lectores, y] ya de paso los editores novatos (a los que se mete en este mismo grupo para que vayan acostumbrándose a ser mordisqueados)" does not mean "And I cant's stand newbies..." but "[in fact, readers, and] also newcomers (which are included in this group so they get used to be bitten)". (Please note the link to the humorous essay.) Curiously, HappyApple/CleverChemist is not a newcomer at the Spanish Wikipedia: he has been editing there since August 16th 2005.

Messhermit has also come here just to make personal attacks ("both Ecemaml and Dodo are particularly famous in the Spanish Wikipedia for their constant abuses against other wikipedians"... but have never been blocked!) and accusations without evidences ("on Dodo's order HappyApple has being blocked for 3 days": which order?). Very strange, indeed.

According to Occam's razor, is easier to believe HappyApple and Messhermit are wrong that Dodo and all the other admins at the Spanish Wikipedia are evil and eat newcomers. Please give us clear diffs so we can decide by ourselves. Regards. --SadPuppy (talk) 08:28, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I do have to clarify that my intention in my previous statement was just to point out that only the mentioned users (Ecemaml and Dodo) have that reputation, not ALL the Administrators. In this case, is not just me, but others in Wikipedia ES share my oppinion as well. Regardless, I do believe that HappyApple was blocked without a reasonable explanation. Messhermit (talk) 12:35, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

SadPuppy, you haven't registered at all. You dont have a discussion page nor user's page (except wellcome tag). And it seems this account has been newly created (considering the first entry was on mediation cabal, couldn't this be an interpretation of a person who joined english version just to discredit my words? [6] (in good terms i will assume good faith though).

I want to give an answer to previous statements: as i get the idea they only want to incite further controversies here, into a dispute pending to be solved.

It has to be noted that I want to suggest SadPuppy, stop saying words like "HappyApple is having defamation character" or "crying". I clearly see, if someone places on CleverChemist discussion page (such as Dodo did saying that he likes to mock and bullying defenseless people, that it is clearly against reasoning good faith) [7]. (quote. Direct Translation - "I insist: I will not discuss more with you on how bad we are I (dodo) and my accomplices who let to me flagellate defenseless users.").

I want to remark to the previous statement, is only trying to incite the parties to abandon or disengage from discussion. And to just discredit my words. I dont think this is civil.

Let it be on the record that this case should be open for any advocate who may pick up the case. Any suggestions Kim? =) I have took note of breathing :) --HappyApple (talk) 08:54, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

What is the problem with not having an user or talk page? That's an ad hominem and you know it.

Regarding that diff you quote, how do we know if it must be taken literally or if Dodo is just answering your previous accusations? For example, you went to his talk page, apparently without previous provocation, to tell him "I'm reproducing literally what happened 2 years ago and nothing else ... a lot of things give me a bad feeling about you." Could you please clarify? As far as I can see, you started the flame. Regards. --SadPuppy (talk) 09:12, 14 March 2008 (UTC) PS. Please do not misread my words. I said "the statements of HappyApple have a clear defamation character" not "HappyApple is having defamation character". There's a huge difference: the one that goes from a critic to a personal attack.

HappyApple is not particularly good translating stuff from spanish to english, so in the same way that we "assume" good faith to Ecemaml and Dodo, I believe its fair to ask the same treatment for HappyApple. Messhermit (talk) 12:38, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

That's fair. I cannot yet see where the "And I cant's stand newbies" came from, but we'll give HappyApple the chance to explain his own mistakes. Now please give us the diffs that back your accusations up: "both Ecemaml and Dodo are particularly famous in the Spanish Wikipedia for their constant abuses against other wikipedians" and "on Dodo's order HappyApple has being blocked for 3 days". We'll asume good faith to you in the meantime. Regards. --SadPuppy (talk) 12:41, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Totally disagree with SadPuppy's last thread about "I cant stand newbies" from Dodo's blog.

As it seems he is missunderstanding my words. I endorse Messhermit statement about assuming also good faith on me, as i also posted before (i am not particulary good on translating things, i do my best, as i am not frequent using english at the moment)[8].

But something it has to be remarked with the previous statement: You can't assume good faith when you read a some sort of controversial post made by Dodo on his personal blog. [9] arguing readers or wikipedians are not smart.

Although that the context was regarding about arguments used by many wikipedians to maintain or let templates be on Spanish Wiki among other "fixes" or helps.

On that context he did a personal comment about it, where "he publicly suggested that in his view, newcomers and people who use arguments supporting or suggesting wikipedians could be not smart should be get used to be bitten."

In my opinion, someone who says this, is inciting or endorsing this Newcomers. I know i am not a newcomer, thus i may not fall under that category, but i totally disagree with his views about this.

I want to make an statement answering SadPuppy's argument regarding the nature of my intention about contacting Dodo.

First, Dodo placed a demand about stoping to recreate a template i did. But i disagreed with his way to tell me the things, i felt he was being rude, and i asked him to calm down. But instead, Dodo incited a fight, (it is very difficult to cite references here as his account was deleted and with his discussion page too, (as of March 14, he had left Spanish Wikipedia).

Second, then i feedbacked him saying that i disagreed with his view of telling me that i had defaming intention on esteban.barahona discussion page and i promptly answered that i disagreed with that, i was only telling the other user i had a clash with Dodo two years ago (assuming good faith) (thus explaining Dodo my intention had no clear defaming intention, just to reproduce my words from two years ago, to the other user). And it has to be noted that i suggested he should present his case in the CRC (Comite de resolucion) in a better way, thus maybe i could help him making an statement.[10].

i still insist, SadPuppy has to read all corners from a square to deduce square is a square (if you know what i mean). In other words, he has to listen all parts and not just trying to be Promotor Fidei (acting against me). I disagree with the use of words like "crying" or "famation", as they could be missunderstood assuming not good faith.

I still insist, the blockade against me was quite unfair, as i didn't received any warning from the user who blocked me (not dodo, but petronas), If i would had received a warning from him, i would have desisted to make any statement, and i would have remained mute. I believe if someone is going to be blocked, that person should receive a warning before being blocked. Is this suggestion correct and fair?. Even if the person could be doing acts considered controversial or maybe his words are being missunderstood, he should receive a warning from the administrator who is going to block him.

Since SadPuppy is a newly registered user who seems with new user account as ofMarch 14, 2008, who promtly started to contribuite wikipedia on mediation cabal, i suggest he is trying to incite flames on this discussion (here on en) and just discreting or counter response my words as seen on the previous edits he made (where he asks himself many question of doubt against me), (i am not saying this is uncivil, but since he is new at en, and he is editing (as it seems only on this thread), i really feel doubts about his identity and his intention, may i suggest he is user HUB?) a discussion which in my opinion i want to disengage. I am not saying i am walking away from wikipedia, but rather avoid further discussion and let what others have to say about it. I like what Kim said, Breathe take it easy.

And Wikipedia is just like that, and sometimes we have good times, bad times, we fail, we learn. That's simple. --HappyApple (talk) 22:42, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Controversial post? Don't pull my leg. Can you actually read Spanish? I thought you were Peruvian, but it seems not: Dodo's post discusses the fallacy of using the argument "readers are dumb" to make format decisions about Wikipedia pages layout, and in fact he argues that readers are usually smarter than thought. You claim the side note about newcomers, properly misreaded, are enough to assume bad faith on his behalf, so all your other accusations are true. What!? But, of course, we *must* assume good faith on your comments here because you're not so great translating from Spanish. *sigh*

All in all, it seems Dodo has retired at es:, so apparently you won. Congratulations, HappyApple! Is that the reason behind your closing request? --SadPuppy (talk) 12:54, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Part of the paper trail: Got this page, + translation assistance with the help of Mushii_W on #wikipedia-es

es:Usuario:Gaeddal/bloqueo_de_CleverChemist (block of CleverChemist (== HappyApple?) )

• Misuse of the space dedicated to the wikimeetings to stalk other users due to personal matters
• Causing problems to Wikipedia for using a public space to humilliate a user. Stalking
• This is not the first sabotage, nor the first stalking. Reincidence

The diff from Gaeddal is about the post in question, at the Wikimeeting (?).

I guess HappyApple is sort of forum shopping here. ^^;;;

--Kim Bruning (talk) 02:42, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I do have to mention something: A couple of hours ago, the personal page of Gaeddal had a link to Dodo, which (apparently, if it is not just a big drama) announced his retirement. This is leading me to thing that this Administrator (Gaeddal) could me nothing more than a Suckpuppet, and I believe its worthy of investigation. Messhermit (talk) 13:07, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Another thing also is that (curiously) Ecemaml has imposed a new ban for 1 month even after another wikipedist blocked HappyApple for 3 days. Messhermit (talk) 13:07, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Messhermit, I'm still waiting you to answer my questions. Thanks in advance. --SadPuppy (talk) 13:37, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

close?

HappyApple has requested the case be closed here --Kim Bruning (talk) 04:02, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes Kim, thank you for your prompt answer. And i want to make an statement about that.

It has to be noted that the user in question (Gaeddal) has left spanish wikipedia. As seen here has retired from spanish wikipedia. And i disagree with his views, as he redirected himself to Dodo's user's page (visible on the same thread- Could be his words be biased too?).

Before disengaging from discussion, it has to be noted this:

the argument of "Misuse of the space dedicated to the wikimeetings to stalk other users due to personal matters", is false.

it has to be analized the full context where the phrase was used. And it didn't meant that, instead it was to suggest what topics could be addressed in wikimeeting regarding to controversial affairs in spanish wikipedia. (like said in the thread, and i quote, from a direct translation from the phrase which Gaeddal makes reference seen here

"revision of the disputes that each user has had, mediation of conflicts, and abuses of some administrators, like Dodo's case against user Ari, user Arheki, and the my case on which i have been subject of threat of being blocked from his part regarding a template, [11]".)."

The argument regarding to causing problems,where gaedal makes reference is about "this entry for look for help", the same goes for the second argument "This is not the first sabotage, nor the first stalking. Reincidence", which is being missunderstood. Like i said in the beginning of this thread, it was to look nothing more but assistance. i am not looking for a personal forum.

And since there aren't any diffs which can prove those words (regarding to accusing me of sabotage and stalking and reincidence) were truth or false, i point that they were stated like a little bit of overreaction from gaedal, perhaps?.

I wished to make the previous statement as I dont want my reputation being damaged anymore.

the best is to disengage from discussion and to let this case closed. As i think it has been already settled down in spanish wikipedia.

And just one more thing. Kim, i posted this statement to make things clear, so you may have the opportunity to listen what i had to say about it. Kim if you still dont understand something or if you dont trust me, you can tell. I would be glad to explain myself and make things clear. (Polite way is first) Still good faith, right?, Cheers. --HappyApple (talk) 04:33, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Dodo has responded to some allegations re. HappyApple here. I believe him. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 06:16, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

i had left a short statement on Dihydrogen Monoxide's discussion [12] page about incidents and response to allegations cited by Dodo's on his common page.

regarding to this, I want to declare apologize to all parts involved on this dispute (if they had felt offended).

And it is my personal request, this case to be closed. --HappyApple (talk) 07:24, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Which case? The main question has not been yet answered: is the English Meditation Cabal the place to solve other projects' problems? --SadPuppy (talk) 13:00, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

SadPuppy, my intention is to let this topic and my arguments closed and dismissed. (thus request to close the case)

I am walking away and disengaging from discussion. Pending final statement be copied here, just below my short answer.

It has to be noted that, in my final request, the one which i am referying to [13], i want to add, that mediation cabal is a place to solve problems, but i think it was not a good idea trying to mix up things between inter wiki affairs. Next time i will ask properly and not act like the way i did. Let armies down (not literally) and words down . and breathe like Kim suggested. The best way to make Wikipedia better is having patience and remaining peace (and i had learn that). Cheers. --HappyApple (talk) 14:28, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I see: you are trying to wash your hands on this nasty defamation. :-( --SadPuppy (talk) 18:24, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I edit in es.wikiquote. Can we analyze and solve there en.wikipedia problems? We'd enjoy it.--Chabacano (talk) 00:09, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

<grin> --Kim Bruning (talk) 01:05, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Finally, i want to let the following info plus statements i have made on Dihydrogen Monoxide's discussion page be part of the paper trial too (closing arguments and aftermath of the dispute), where i ask publicly apologies to all parts involved plus personal commitment to do not cause any more incidents like the one ocurred at mediation cabal discussion page. (On the same thread i provided Dihydrogen_Monoxide with references of my arguments so my closing and final argument could be neutral and fairly balanced).

i have totally disengaged from discussion (per Stay cool Disengage).

The preceding statement made by HappyApple, closes the case. He asked for it to mediation cabal participants Kim Brunning and Dihydrogen_Monoxide (the user who picked up the case on the first hand).

Parties involved on the dispute already walked away from discussion and the creator of this thread, HappyApple has already addressed apologies to affected users[14] and has commited to do not let such dispute happen again.

Plus, in aims to let this matter be settled down and end the dispute, his attempts to gather or request assistance about such topic were dismissed by his own will, on the following pages. user Goodfriend100, user Hersfold User The_Thadman

Assuming good faith, as this is the first time and the last time (as HappyApple's commitment on Dihydrogen Monoxide's discussion page) that an incident from such kind had come from him. HappyApple's requests, the case be closed and his reputation be cleared. It is suggested that no other third parties continue this matter per HappyApple's request.--HappyApple (talk) 05:58, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I see. Shame on you. I disengage also from this discussion. --SadPuppy (talk) 10:34, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

User of the en:wiki should know that neither user HappyApple nor Messhermit are free to write here. Both has been accused and blocked in the Spanish:wikipedia for their words here (Ecemamml is one of the punishers who explicitly reproached that). As they should know that user SadPuppy has been created just to 'answer' against HappyApple [15]. May I suggest an IP check as a possible puppet user? The name SadPuppet may mean something and this allows him/her very aggressive expressions against HappyApple with nothing to lose. It's unfair.

HappyApple has even been accused of the exit of Dodo from the es:wiki (unfortunately without any proof) What kind of accusation is that?

If the words of an es:wiki users who also is an en:wikipedian on es:wiki users can be used to block him in the es:wiki, the logical conclusion is that the words of an en:wikipedian in the es:wikipedia against an en:wikipedian (who also is es:wikipedian) can be sanctioned. Otherwise, it's not fair.

User dihydrogen monoxide, what a pity you don't read Spanish. But it's unwise to believe only one side if you can't known the proofs. It's a kind of ad hominem: I know this person ergo he is right, I don't know that person ergo he is wrong. There is many proofs on what Messhermit, before being "visited" in the es:wiki, tried to write on Dodo's bad reputation. I have a very poor opinion on Dodo as administrator of the es:wiki, as I know many of his actions, but of course my opinion doesn't mind here. Independent references? Read on the es:wiki an example. An authomatic translator should be able to allow you to get an impression.

I think that if someone request mediation, he (or she) can be right or can be wrong, but obviously he should be free to expose his case without interferences from Dodo's friends, Spanish administrators [16] or puppets.

When someone informs of a problem, it's because he thinks there is a problem (maybe right, may be wrong). If the fact of telling that he thinks that other person is unfair with him is to be considered a defamation beforehand and being object of reprisals by the friends of the other side, there could be never a request for mediation.

Kim Bruning, you should check whether Sadpuppy is a puppet user and whether what has happened here is O.K. IMHO it is too irregular. --Dilvish 10 words (talk) 18:49, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Funny! Now please tell us if you're this same Dilvish. Also, please confirm if you have been trolling here and there since your blocking. If fact, it's a pity not everyone can read Spanish here. Regards. --SadPuppy (talk) 11:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC) PS. Kim, check my IPs if you like.

Coral Smith article

Hello, some controversy arose between my self and another editor over an edit on the Coral Smith article. Actually, the dispute was a day ago. I found the user’s behavior to be particularly incivil so I chose to put the issue on hold for the time. It ended with me having to withdraw from the situation because I knew it was a no-win one. I withdrew by giving the editor a friendly comment on his user page just to let him know that this is nothing personal, but merely an attempt at improving the article, he thanked me, and that's where things left off at.

Basically the editing dispute is over whether The Real World/Road Rules Challenge spinned off from both The Real World and Road Rules and not just The Real World. His position is that it is only a spin off of The Real World because that show came out before Road Rules and started it all. My position is that Real World/Road Rules Challenge spinned off from The Real World, as well as Road Rules because: 1.) It really doesn't make a difference because Road Rules came out long before The Real World/Road Rules Challenge too. It only has to come before The Challenge series, not The Real World 2.) The name of the show also has the name Road Rules in it and contestants from Road Rules so I thought that would make for a clear indicator 3.) The show actually has more elements of Road Rules than The Real World as the show is surrounded around making use of challenges and has a lot in common with Road Rules 4.) Our own Wikipedia page on The Real World/Road Rules Challenge has it as a spin off of both shows (in the first paragraph) and has had it that way for a great deal of time (perhaps even years now) without any objection from anyone as shown here: [17] 5.) I even went so far as to provide a source to which I showed the user, but he reverted my edit anyway without communicating why in his edit summmary except for writing "Revert" as shown here [18]. Btw, this was my source [19]

I'd also like to note that he’s tried getting rid of this particular edit another time, but for a different reason. He actually didn't continue to use that same reason as it was a faulty accusation against me, as shown here [20]: It basically states that I had added something into the article that I never did, yet he tells me to read clearly. When I reverted that and corrected him about it (very civily) here [21], he comes back and incivily came up with the reason we're now disputing about, through this edit here [22]. Though he says, "Stop reverting it, and stop edit warring with me" while reverting back the edit, I’d like to note that I had only reverted it one time as opposed to the two times he had reverted it at that point.

Justifying my self and finding a source for my work hasn't seemed to work so I am hoping someone outside of the dispute could help. Thank you! BicMacDad18 (talk) 20:07, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I've provided my reasoning for my position in my Edit Summaries and on his Talk Page, which is that The Real World is the parent show of the spinoffs, not Road Rules, and that because the Coral Smith article is about a contestant from them, and not the shows themselves, a more succinct amount of detail would cause the Intro to flow more easily for the reader, but BicMacDad has consistently not responded to this. Instead, on two occasions he has indicated that he was satisfied with my edits or the reasoning I provided, only to reverse himself for some reason after both of these instances to continue the disagreement.

In his 08:08, 31 March post on this Talk Page, he said "Well, I accept! You made some great edits to Coral Smith too and I'll remember those rules.". But then he continued to argue over this with me. Then, in his 08:04, 31 March post on my Talk Page, he said, "MaxSem says we better go to mediation or something. Haha! He's like I am not getting involved with all this! haha! So much for that. Look, I don't know why I care so much about it. If having that edit means that much to you, I give up." Now, he is again bringing up the matter. It should be noted that just previous to this, we had a disagreement over another passage in the article, which he changed so it read thus, arguing that a comma "didn't look proper" there, which is grammatically untrue. While the edit he created was not grammatically incorrect, it did not improve the passage in any way. This gave the appearance to me that he was struggling to justify making any edit he could to the article, no matter how trivial. Yes, I did tell him stop edit warring with me. That is perfectly valid, and not uncivil, and irrelevant to the issue how many times he reverted one particular passage. All of this suggests that he operating on caprice.

It should also be noted that he has engaged in the following behaviors that is contextually relevant to this matter:

• He consistently deletes comments from his Talk Page that are critical of him, while keeping ones that appear to save him face. I politely cautioned to stop doing this, and he deleted that comment as well. He states on his User Page, {If you're having a problem with me, the best thing to do is to apologize (even if it's my fault)..." He notes after this comment that it is intended as a joke, but the fact that the only artifact of our exchanges that he didn't delete from his Talk Page is a reference to my apology to him for accidentally blocking would indicate that it's an accurate reflection of his demeanor.
• When corresponding with me on my Talk Page during this disagreement, he brought up a previous unjustified block that I had made against him. I had explained that I had simply clicked on the link of the wrong user, and apologized for doing this. This was certainly not typical of my habits, as it was the first time I ever made this mistake, and therefore had nothing to do with our subsequent disagreement.
• He previously got a conflict with User:Gwandoya over similarly trivial matters. He ultimately claimed on her Talk Page to have accepted her explanation, but again, he deleted her comments from his Talk Page.

BicMacDad seems to have a lot of energy that can be put to good use as an editor, and his adherence, for example, to the Edit Summary policy shows that he's interested in and capable of learning WP policies. But he's not off to a good start with respect to his selectivity in his edits, and how he handles conflict and criticism from others. I am more than willing to help him along in this regard, and am open to suggestions. Nightscream (talk) 21:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

UPDATE I just read his User Page, on which he states that he is not a newbie, but a veteran user who used to post anonymously. Nightscream (talk) 22:50, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for responding Nightscream! I do apologize if you feel that this is a show of caprice, but I thought you were a little cooled off and more willing to have rational conversation with me about the issue now that it's a day later. In my opinion, you seemed uncivil the other day and unwilling to reason. You say this is trivial yet you've engaged in edit warring over the matter which shows conflicting feelings.

We can both sit here and come up with a million complaints about each other, but I am sure an outside party does not have the time nor the patience to deal with every last one of them. I now ask that an outside party just focus on the edit in conflict which is whether or not The Real World/Road Rules Challenge is spinned off from both shows (Real World and Road Rules) or just the Real World, which (again) I have provided a source for and Nightscream has not. BicMacDad18 (talk) 22:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

First of all, if you are implying by your opening sentence that a mediator will not look into the comment deletion and other behaviors that I've pointed to on your part, then you are mistaken. Second, reverting bad edits does not constitute "edit warring". Lastly, I indeed responded to your "source", by pointing out to you that the site in question is not connected to MTV/Paramount. It certainly doesn't change the definition of the word "spinoff" either. Why not respond to this? Why instead imply that I have not done so at all? Doing this will not look favorable for you when someone examines this conflict. Nightscream (talk) 22:50, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Nightscream, please remember that an agreement can only be reached when everyone cooperates calmly and politely as noted in The Wikipedia: Mediation Cabal article. Refering to any good faith edit as "bad edits" isn't cooperating politely. We're here to come to a resolution, not to insult each other's edits or become hostile with one another. Thank you! BicMacDad18 (talk) 02:52, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

In the first place, agreements aren't always reached in disputes. In the second place, expressing the opinion that your edits are not good ones is not an "insult", "hostile" or "[im]polite". It is simply an expression of my viewpoint, which is unavoidable in a dispute resolution.Nightscream (talk) 15:13, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

ADMIN NOW EDIT WARRING WITH OTHER USERS AS WELL IN A VERY SIMILAR SITUATION

I'd like to note that this admin is currently engaged in a very similar heated situation on The Real World article, edit warring, only against what looks to be several editors, as shown here [23]. The dispute is over a "date" with Nightscream protecting the page on the date he wants in the article, as shown here [24]. Given that it seems there are several editors in disagreement with Nightscream, he shouldn't be protecting the page and calling all of them disruptive, but initiating a discussion on the article talk page (which has not be done), inserting a [citation needed] link, or coming here to get the other edit war problem he's having resolved. BicMacDad18 (talk) 17:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

A check user was recently ran on BicMacDad [25] and it was confirmed that the editor is a possible sock puppet of a banned user named User:EverybodyHatesChris. Gwandoya ^Talk 17:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Gwandoya's comment has nothing to do with the debate over the edit in conflict and the topic of this discussion which is Coral Smith article. It serves no purpose here. I have tried to delete the above remark with a very clear edit summary reasoning of why, but it doesn't seem as if I am going to get anywhere with the user as she's beginning to edit war about it here [26] and here [27]. My issues with her sprouted here [28] when she reverted material I had added into the Coral Smith article without explaining why in her edit summary. When I reverted it back here (with my reason why): [29] and gave her this kind note on her talk page: [30], this is how she responded [31]. She's stated that her response of "I don't have to answer to that" was a mistake. However, the very fact that she says she is above edit warring here [32] after beginning to engage in it on this page causes me to question the honesty of her comments. Again, however, because this is all irrelevant to the topic at hand and I don't want the point of this discussion to shift, I will refrain from responding to her on these issues any further than this comment. BicMacDad18 (talk) 23:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm a he, not a she. And there is a difference between an edit war and just reverting bad edits. And I have Rollback privileges which don't give the user with them an option to add an edit summary (as your removal of my earlier comment without my permission is constituted as vandalism). Hope this can clear anything up. Cheers. Gwandoya ^Talk 23:51, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

MfD of some Archived MedCab case subpages

Anyone have any thoughts on this Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-09-11 Falkland Islands/Mediation/Draft-Alex-1? There are two pages nominated, both subpages of the same mediation. Looks like Eagle 101 was the mediator.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 22:59, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Research in conflict resolution

Hi. I've recently become acquainted with some people at the University of Washington who have been researching our little encyclopedia project, from a variety of angles. I've been put in touch with Travis Kriplean (User:Leafman), whose work deals with conflict resolution, and how we build consensus on controversial topics. I expect we'll be meeting face-to-face soon, and I'm very interested to see what kind of definite statements we can make about dispute resolution methods. User:Kim Bruning asked me to post here, as this might be relevant to mediators' interests. I'll let you know as developments progress. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:13, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

This really is interesting, as I've just had one dispute turn into a positive experience all around with minimal clarification -- not really formal mediation -- from another individual working on the project that another article touched upon. In the case where mediation failed, if there was such a thing from the mediation cabal (if that exists), the other editor dropped out of the process; my perception was that there were insurmountable POV issues.

With another article that had huge POV issues, Central Intelligence Agency, I have been pleasantly surprised to find some editors, who I wrongly thought were committed to a conspiratorial view of the situation, began to come together in recognition that the original article had become unmanageable in size. Breaking out sub-articles and being very careful usually to add rather than delete content seemed to help, and, taking things slowly, there were no major screams when material, tagged for sourcing for a couple of months or that could be demonstrated to lack internal consistency, were eventually removed.

There are some articles where the POVs are so intense that I doubt the main article will ever converge. What seems to be most productive is to create, or modify, articles on the edges of the main dispute, where some consensus is possible. When there are huge arguments over having flags in infoboxes, rather than simplifying the infobox and having substantive discussions in the article, that's indicative the situation is probably not soluble. I do note that the most progress is made when there is a project/task force about a nation-state or civil war, and especially a reconciliation project, and the least progress when the war involves several national projects -- and there are partisans from various countries wanting other countries to confess all their sins without recognizing blame often is shared.

Feel free to email me about this if that seems useful.Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 05:10, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd love to be CCed in, if possible. :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 05:40, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi everyone, I'm glad to hear that there's interest in my research! I'm looking forward to talking with Tony and everyone in the future. The anecdotes that Howard posts above are intriguing and I'd love to be involved in a systemic effort to typify situations where different approaches yield better results with respect to dispute resolution (and see if there is the possibility for tools that may help mediators like yourselves more readily identify those situations).Leafman (talk) 01:48, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, there's an old cases list, and then there's the current ongoing cases here. That's a start. Then there's third opinion which might also keep an archive. Then there's Editor Assistence, Requests for comment... oh, well that's a start that will keep you busy for a while. --Kim Bruning (talk) 05:37, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Yep, there's a ton of places to look for material :) Leafman (talk) 17:14, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Article On Daniel Boey

Hello, I am need of assitance here in regards to this article. I have been in discussion with multiple admins on how to resolve the past issues in regards to this article. I was working with the admins who, after all the changes they felt were necessary, allowed the article to be recreated. However as soon as it was recreated another couple of admins almost immediately deleted the article citing reasons that clearly were opinionated and obvious that no research into the article was made before deletion. Further more, non of the admins in question even bothered to contact me first before deleting the article. I am finding this type of behavior unreasonable, and frankly dissrespectful not only to myself, but to the other admins that allowed this artle to be published. What can be done to rectify this problem?

Thank you. Succisa75 (talk) 18:34, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

User name change

Hi, I've changed my user name from 'Addhoc' to 'PhilKnight', which surprisingly enough is my real name. PhilKnight (talk) 01:44, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Show your love for the MedCab

You can place a cabal-lovin' "bumper sticker" on your user page, if you'd like. See an example of its use on User:Vassyana. Image:I Heart the Cabal.png courtesy of Slowking Man's contribution to the public domain. Cheers! Vassyana (talk) 13:36, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikistuffs: <center> {{Click |image = I Heart the Cabal.png |link = WP:MEDCAB }} </center>