Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Kender

Next step

There seem to be some essential points that people mostly agree upon:

Good sources are needed.
Some trimming is needed.
Better collaboration is need.

Let's work from those and see what we can do about them. Vassyana (talk) 05:30, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good sources

Sandbox: Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Kender/Sources

Let's see what we can find in terms of some good sources about the topic. Full citation information should be provided, along with selected quotes from the source that would be useful as reference material for the article. Please avoid quotes of excessive length, both for the ease of other participants and out of respect for our references intellectual property. Please add each new source to a new section.

Trimming

Sandbox: Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Kender/Trim

I've copied the current version of Kender to this sandbox. Please start with light trimming, taking each step cautiously. Make liberal use of the sandbox talk page to explain the trims and discuss each other's ideas. Take it slow and see what agreements can be worked out.

I gave it a bit of a start. :) BOZ (talk) 17:40, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I promise to do more soon... just been busy is all. :) BOZ (talk) 14:06, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Collaboration

After we build up some sources and work out a reasonably non-contentious trim, we can work on combining the two in a single sandbox, hopefully to create an article that is tolerable (if not desirable) for everyone involved.

Ursasapien

By the way, I just wanted to point out, for those who haven't noticed (because he didn't mention it here), that Ursasapien is on a short wikibreak due to illness. BOZ (talk) 18:42, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Concern

I just wanted to be sure that everyone was aware of the concerns I have voiced at the talk page for the trim sandbox. I'm not sure if discussion should be here or there, but as the issues in question are on that talk page (and the page itself to some extent), I started there. SamBC(talk) 14:12, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is better served here, I think. I had noticed the same concerns that Sam brings up, but I was hoping that things can still be worked out. I also agree with Sam's point that Gavin seems to have been improving in working with those he disagrees with here, but at the same time there seems to be some slipping backward. It is a slippery slope, but that does not mean it cannot be surmounted - I hope! BOZ (talk) 14:19, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Touching base on another point

Can each of you list a few articles from the involved articles presented on the mediation request page that you believe cannot be easily addressed using the method we've put to work here for Kender? Please keep any statements or rationales about why such an approach would not work very brief and to the point. Similarly, please keep statements about how such articles should be handled very short. Thanks! Vassyana (talk) 15:53, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In a nutshell, cleanup templates which I placed on Kender and the other articles have been disputed and I feel they are being removed without the highlighted issues being addressed in most instances. In the case of Kender, I feel that our work to date which involved addressing each cleanup issue, which has shown that the templates were justified. However these issues cannot be addressed if the templates are removed and there is denial that cleanup is required. --Gavin Collins (talk) 15:48, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First, I would recommend using {{Articleissues}} for anything requiring multiple tags. Beyond that, what are the tags that tend to be most disputed? What justification is used to add them? What justification is used to remove them? Returning to my initial question, what specific articles from the list are likely to be difficult or impossible to repair or address using the method we've used for Kender? What makes them difficult/impossible to repair? Vassyana (talk) 15:23, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a look at the Kender talk page, you will see sections called plot cleanup and synthesis where the dispute raged and got rather heated. --Gavin Collins (talk) 15:45, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could a few other parties touch base on my questions above? Also, could other parties please describe their view of the tagging disputes? Vassyana (talk) 16:08, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additional parties/collaborators

I've been thinking on it and a few additional editors working with us here may help keep things moving along and also ensure that any consensus we generate is more likely to stick. Do you folks have any suggestions for additional collaborators who would be good to invite? Good invitation targets will be involved in the topic area and can be expected to fit in with the productive/cooperative environment we have established here. Thanks! Vassyana (talk) 15:28, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I went on a wikibreak while this mediation effort was in the process of being set up. If you'd be willing to have me I'd be glad to help out. McJeff (talk) 16:33, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that should be a problem, as you are obviously an active party to the disputed area. However, I would ask that you remain open to compromise and moderate solutions. Take a look over Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Kender/Trim and the associated talk page to see what we've been working on. Your comments in the above section would also be welcome. Vassyana (talk) 17:59, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have been on a break as well. What can I do to add postively to this process? Web Warlock (talk) 18:05, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The same things I mention to McJeff above. If you have any other questions, please do not hesitate to ask. Vassyana (talk) 18:45, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WebWarlock had already been invited to join the mediation previously, and as he said he had been on a break. McJeff was actually the first person with whom I discussed bringing up a mediation case, but by the time he was ready to throw in his hat the party was full. Having them both involved, where some editors have become inactive, would hopefully liven things up. See here for where I left off, gentlemen. BOZ (talk) 02:28, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Case stalling

Is there something that can be done to move this case along? There has been very little response to my more recent questions and very little activity on the draft page. Unless the participation can be brought up a notch, especially in regards to responses to mediator prompts, this case may be closed as "stale". Vassyana (talk) 03:00, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will try and wrap up the editing of Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Kender/Trim over the next few days. --Gavin Collins (talk) 20:10, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Kender/Trim moved to Talk:Kender/Draft for use outside of mediation. Vassyana (talk) 13:49, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]