Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal

New sections at bottom, please.

The Mediation Cabal
Main page	Current cases	Suggestions
Central discussion

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)

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)

(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.

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.

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)