Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/2009 Archive 2

Abandoned or open or what?

Who's following up on Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-03-04 Amen? It was submitted in March of last year and has been boldly closed on inactivity with the comment "nothing happening, mediator gone". The mediator, User:Kagetsu Tohya, has 15 edits on Wikipedia, the latest on March 14, 2008. The page Talk:Amen has a banner stating that the article has been submitted for mediation and "Please do not remove this notice until the issue is resolved." What is going to happen in this case? __meco (talk) 08:06, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Left a reply on Meco's talk. Normally a case is closed when there is A) no participation in the case on the part of the participants and B) no participation on the part of the mediator. I usually leave a warning that I'll close a case if no-one replies on the casepage after a while. Xavexgoem (talk) 08:31, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Waiting time?

Just wondering what's the waiting time before a case is open? I see that some cases have been created in March and are still not open. Are there still people monitoring this page? Thanks, Laurent (talk) 10:09, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Laurent, sorry your case hasn't been opened, unfortunately the waiting varies considerably from a few days to over a month. PhilKnight (talk) 11:06, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about the delay in accepting your case, however we have a shortage of mediators, and for this reason, there are normally long delays in cases being opened. Steve Crossin ^Talk/_{Help us mediate!} 21:45, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Case

Hello everyone. I've been told that there is a slight backlog of cases. I'm not currently taking a case for the mediation committee at the minute, so if I can be of service I'd appreciate the chance to help out. I respect that I could just take a case, but if someone would like to nominate a case for me to take (should you want me services! :-) ) that would be fantastic. Regards, Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 18:41, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Ooh thank you thank you thank. War of the Pacific and Dreamhost are the most urgent, I think. The problems of the latter are more easily identifiable (user-conduct with a glaze of undue weight); currently the article is prot'd and the talk page semi'd. It's an older case, but it isn't stale (memory of the medcab request probably is, though). War of the Pacific is on its way to becoming an entrenched dispute, from the look of it, but there's some wiggle-room. Up to you :-) Xavexgoem (talk) 19:55, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I've taken the Dreamhost case, so perhaps you could have a look at War of the Pacific? PhilKnight (talk) 00:28, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Excellent - I'll go for War of the Pacific then. I'll crack on with it later. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 08:40, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

• I find myself in a similar situation. Are there any cases you folks think to be the urgently in need of a mediator? AGK 11:34, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

• Query withdrawn. After a quick browse around the open case list, I noticed that the parties on Daybreak (Battlestar Galactica) had been awaiting a mediator for over a month—so I've offered to take that case on. AGK 11:36, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Request for comment on content dispute resolution

There's a Request for comment on content dispute resolution which could be of interest. PhilKnight (talk) 23:04, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Help

I've decided to give a hand here-I changed the template to open but it doesn't seem to have moved. Have I done summin wrong?dottydotdot (talk) 17:12, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

The bot takes about 10 to 20 minutes to update things. Everything's good :-) Xavexgoem (talk) 17:15, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Cool thought that would be the case, thanks! dottydotdot (talk) 18:33, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Questions

Hi guys. I see your a little short on Mediators, so I'd be happy to help after these questions. I spoke with Phil earlier yesterday on these two questions, but you really didn't answer them I'm afraid. :P These are the two questions.

• Do Mediators give out informal rulings?
• Do Mediators become involved in the case such as discussion, or do they just stand back, after so and so days they see if they have consensus or if they need to take it higher?

Sorry Phil, but the suggestions page didn't really help me :(. Renaissancee (talk) 21:33, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

To the first: mediators don't rule on content, but often they can draw attention to aspects of site policy applicable to a dispute—which serve to identify one side of the dispute as correct and one as incorrect (if indirectly—mediators are neutral parties and don't "take sides").

To the second: Every mediator has their own approach to a dispute. Nevertheless, I would imagine that every mediator would have to take some proactive role in the discussions; in mediating cases, I usually find I have to restrict debate on a given issue in order to prevent the exploration of superflous subjects, whilst prompting the parties to pay attention to another issue. Mediators stimulate consensus-building by guiding debate, and so, whilst they usually don't offer interjections in agreement or disagreement with one comment (as a party would be expected to), they will usually use such tactics as asking open questions, suggesting a given avenue be ignore for now or another avenue be explored.

Hope this helps. AGK 22:56, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Alright, thanks. Renaissancee (talk) 00:24, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Carabinieri

1. thanks User:Bibiki for not notifying me about this Cabal Case
2. User:Bibiki is a POV warrior, who wishes to denounce the Carabinieri with his POV, original research ideas
3. edits like these show that he came with an agenda [1], [2], [3]
4. interestingly there is a 3 year gap in his campaign... and he only edits the Carabinieri article
5. his edits are nonsense: he himself admits that there was no resistance to Mussolini before 1943, but insists to denounce the Carabinieri for falling to participate in it (difficult I think to be part of something that did not exist)
6. is wording is not encyclopedic at all: i.e. "The Carabinieri are not known to have been part of the Italian resistance movement" what else have they not been known for??? playing basketball comes to mind; also we would need to mention then that they are not known to have climbed Mount Everest as user:Jim Sweeney aptly observed; sources for this claim: a page listing the Military Operations of the Carabinieri... the conclusion is all his...
7. his referencing is ridiculous i.e this blog or this that doesn't mention the things he wishes to insert, but he uses it as evidence for the personal opinion he took from the aforementioned blog...
8. his knowledge of things like Cabal Cases and third opinions point to someone who is much more familiar with wiki-policy than a beginner - so the suspicion of User:Bibiki being a sock of some other POV warrior is high (compare with the extreme edits of another anti-Carabinieri POV warrior: [4], [5], [6])
9. further debate about the validity of this POV warriors imaginations, is a waste of time. --noclador (talk) 14:16, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Quick Question

What should I do if I've taken on a case & put something on the talk page & also the talk pages of the involved editors but have received no reply & there is no activity. Should I just close it or what? Cheers! Dottydotdot (talk) 09:59, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Dottydotdot, in the Brooklyn Law School case, neither of the parties have edited in the last 10 days, so I'd suggest closing the case for now. PhilKnight (talk) 10:13, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks! Dottydotdot (talk) 11:58, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Request posted but not listed

I posted a request but it isn't listed. Does it have to be accepted for it is shown on the front page? I am unfamiliar with the process! : ) Wikifan12345 (talk) 09:16, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Wikifan12345, it's listed now. PhilKnight (talk) 11:09, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:23, 12 June 2009 (UTC)