Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal

New sections at bottom, please.

The Mediation Cabal
Main page	Current cases	Suggestions
Central discussion

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>

How long does it take?

I added a new case by using the template just a few minutes ago; just wondering how soon does it usually show up on the list? Thanks, Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 19:38, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah, it's there now. "Never mind!" Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 19:39, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

For the record, the medcab bot runs once every 10 minutes. Xavexgoem (talk) 20:41, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

"Cosmetic surgery" and the surgical special of "Plastic and Reconstructive surgery" not exactly the same thing.

"Cosmetic surgery" and the surgical specialty of "Plastic and reconstructive surgery" are not the same thing. They should be separate articles. The "cosmetic surgery" article on cosmetics is consistently being redirected to a different article about a related but separate topic (ie. the specialty of plastics).

Here are some examples of the current representative bodies for "cosmetic surgery":

• Australasian College of Cosmetic Surgery
• American Academy of Cosmetic Surgery
• American Board of Cosmetic Surgery
• Canadian Academy of Cosmetic Surgery
• European Academy of Cosmetic Surgery
• Is facial cosmetic surgery for you?

http://www.americanboardcosmeticsurgery.org/fellowship_route.php training requirements for US board certification in cosmetic surgery]

Even without fellowship training in cosmetics, many specialties are actually required to each cosmetics as part of their standard residency training program (example Otolaryngology and Maxillofacial surgery Board certification exams have a substantial component devoted to cosmetics 15-30%)

There are many medical/surgical specialties that utilise cosmetic surgical techniques and procedures and are equally licensed to provide such procedures, not only the surgical specialty of "Plastic and reconstructive surgery". Redirecting the entire article to the Plastic surgery article suggests a certain POV that only Plastic surgeons can provide cosmetic procedures to the public and this is not true. Cosmetic surgery procedures are performed by many specialties (one of which being plastic surgery).. others being OMFS, ENT, Opth, General surg, Urology, etc. Please help. Thank you. Jwri7474 (talk) 09:27, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Stephanie Adams Article

Hello, there seems to be a lot of animosity/jealousy by users who have been editing the article on Stephanie Adams, even on the discussion page. Can someone step in and stop people from making personal attacks against the subject matter? This woman obviously does not know anyone of them personally and her article should no longer be edited by people who clearly have some sort of gripe against her. If they do not like her, then perhaps they should write about someone else. 71.167.226.96 (talk) 08:34, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

When considering this request from 71.167.226.96 please be aware that she has referred to other editors as "sicko", "retard", "idiot", "flunky" and peppers her contributions with "You took your hand off your little thing between your legs long enough to type" and other such comments. (Her contribution to Talk:Stephanie Adams at [1].) So, yes, there does seem to be an inappropriate amount of animosity and personal attacks from people who have some sort of gripe. But let's be clear on who is actually the source. -- Sean Martin (talk) 18:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

First of all, I am a "he", not a "she". Second, I never left comments like that and am starting to wonder if you are mentally all there. Sean Martin, stop obsessing over Stephanie Adams and stop leaving personal attacks about her on her discussion page just because she sued your friend and beat him. Miss Adams does not know you and will never want to know you. End of story. 71.167.226.96 (talk) 23:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

"I never left comments like that" Just follow the link I provided. If not you then someone coming thru the exact same IP address and clearly you should look much closer to home when admonishing folks to stop personal attacks. (Any confusion, if it exists, could be easily alleviated if you got a named Wiki account. Avoiding anonymity would also help credibility.) "stop leaving personal attacks about her on her discussion page" Please provide even one example. "she sued your friend and beat him" You can keep saying that, but it will remain untrue. She has threatened and harassed, but not sued any friends of mine. Assuming her suit against James Poling is what you are referring to, again, I've never met him, never spoken to him, do not know him personally, am not friends with him.

Now, I will continue to respond to any postings you or anyone makes containing falsehoods about me. I'll stop the moment you do. -- Sean Martin (talk) 00:50, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Objection to mediator

I strenuously object to Nothing444 (talk · contribs) serving as Mediator at Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2008-04-24_Wales. I'm not a party to the case, but Nothing444 is barely a week off his fourth block in a month. He does not understand policy or how to work collaboratively, let alone in a dispute resolution forum. MBisanz ^talk 05:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Moot/resolved.[2] Vassyana (talk) 09:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Covert Incest

I helped out at Covert Incest and the dispute appears to have been resolved. Should I close it myself or let someone else do it? (I do not want to have people angry at me for being near MedCab) Geoff Plourde (talk) 01:40, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Michael Rutter, Attachment theory, John Bowlby

There are now three requests filed by Kingsley Miller in respect of the above articles but it is essentially the same issue. There has been a 3PO and a Source Noticeboard opinion already. I would suggest any interested mediator would need to deal with all three. Fainites ^barley 09:12, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with this!

KingsleyMiller (talk) 18:59, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Each one is also being used, not just to request mediation but to set out the same arguments and allegations as have already been set out on the respective talkpages, in addition to the maternal deprivation talkpage, and carried over from page to page. Each one involves disagreements between the same three editors about broadly the same set of assertions and allegations. Fainites ^barley 21:15, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

As the referral pages are now a hopeless mess, for the sake of any potential mediator, a rough list of issues for mediation purposes would be something along the lines of:

Fainites ^barley 20:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Attachment theory

Can somebody tell me who tried to erase part of the discussion at;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2008-04-25_Attachment_theory

KingsleyMiller (talk) 18:59, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

There's no sign of anything being removed in the ordinary history. Perhaps there was an edit conflict as there are two edits very close in time. Fainites ^barley 22:18, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Remove Spam Associated with my Company

Hello,

i am the owner of cruisedealership.com which appears as a spamming which is not true we DONOT condone it and i have spoken to my it department about ever posting on your sites they were not reading all of your guidelines.

please remove us from the blacklist

I am having trouble getting someone to help. can u kindly help as i am very concerned when people are searching thru google for my company information having that kind of comments related to my site. I spoke to my it department they tought in good standards they were trying to provide related content to subjects on wiki. or if you can foward this for immediate attention to the correct department

It was a mistake of poor judgement we are asking for forgiveness have u ever made a mistake. please remove spam associated with cruisedealership as we are a very ethical company and assure you no cruisedealership would ever be posted on ur company site again----71.167.29.181 (talk) 23:33, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Please see the detailed chronology of this matter at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist#Unlist request of cruisedealership.com. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 01:16, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Cabal?

What is a Cabal? ΤΕΡΡΑΣΙΔΙΩΣ(^Ταλκ) 11:00, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

From Merriam-Webster Online "the artifices and intrigues of a group of persons secretly united in a plot (as to overturn a government); also : a group engaged in such artifices and intrigues." Basically the word has negative connotation, but the Mediation Cabal plays on that word to make it seem more friendly and less likely to bite someone's head off, as Wikipedia pages ever so often do. Cowman109^Talk 01:56, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Here on Wikipedia, a cabal is "they," the ones who have conspired to thwart every edit you'll ever want to make through skeinish takes on Wikipedia policy, which they change at their whim. The cabal is unknown and unknowable, as are their goals but I think these may have something to do with this, maybe this though. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:03, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Ulster Defence Regiment

I would request some mediation on the Ulster Defence Regiment page. I have been editing for about a month now and am finding severe resistance to my work from several other editors who, it would appear, have taken umbrage at me improving the article. I am certainly not being treated in good faith as a newcomer but rather I am being bombarded with deletions, reminders of Wikipedia policy and guidelines, accusations of conflict of interest, incivility and personal attacks. My work is also being unfairly tagged (in my opinion) as "weasel words". As far as I can see I am being subjected to a form of filibustering in the hope that I'll give up but in the meantime my name is being dragged into disrepute with frivolous claims to admins that I am the one responsible for the edit warring. Third party editors have been in and have been of some assistance but it hasn't stopped the war against me and in fact the credibility of one editor has been called into question because he publicly praised my patience. I will not detail the entire issue here because it is long and complex and has been going on for almost a month. I would appeal for a neutral party (neutral to Irish issues) to review the article and discussion page and please give opinions and recommendations.

GDD1000 (talk) 14:16, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

This report should be considered in view of the above comments. --Domer48 (talk) 14:20, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

This editor has a case of WP:OWN the reason as he claims I am being bombarded with deletions is that the are all policy violations plain and simple. He's been asked several times to propose new additions on the talk page first, if they are compliant with policy they would be quickly agreed. He's refused to do this, he keeps repeatedly adding unsourced material, then edit warring when it's removed. Right now all that's needed is an admin who's prepared to step up to the plate and enforce policy especially considering the ArbCom case that covers this article, thanks BigDunc (talk) 14:53, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I request that this be included http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Traditional_unionist#Ulster_Defence_Regiment

GDD1000 (talk) 16:34, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Formal mediation now requested [[3]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by GDD1000 (talk • contribs) 20:26, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

This case is now extending to the Remembrance Day Bombing article and similar edit warring is now in progress by user BigDunc (talk) who disputes the source at [[4]]. I request intervention please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GDD1000 (talk • contribs) 15:58, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Sticking to our policies is not edit warring. Adding content as you are doing, which is not WP:V and WP:RS is disruptive, its not like you have not been told enough, but you choose to ignore the advice. --Domer48 (talk) 19:15, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I made 1 reversion GDD1000 makes 3 so please who is edit warring? BigDunc (talk) 19:24, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

How can I make three reversions when you only made one? Does this mean I am reverting the item three times to combat more than one editor acting in concert?GDD1000 (talk) 11:51, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

You made 3 reverts I made 1 simple you are edit warring not me. And less of the conspiracy theories please and have a read of WP:AGF--BigDunc (talk) 13:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

If you made one revert then I only made one revert. Unless others made the same revert which I then reverted. How does that make it a suggestion of conspiracy? The history of the page is there as evidence of who made what reverts and when. If I want to make an allegation I'm quite capable of doing it and I resent the implication that I have done so. I request you keep your dialogue civil and stop Wikilawyering.GDD1000 (talk) 14:09, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

...combat more than one editor acting in concert?' your words, sounds like a conspiracy theory to me and as for The history of the page is there as evidence of who made what reverts and when Exactly I made 1 you made 3. now stop with the nonsense and dont be telling me to remain civil when I am being totally civil just presenting FACTS you know them things. BigDunc (talk) 14:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

If it sounds like a conspiracy theory to you then I respectfully submit that does say more about you than it does me. If I made two more reverts than you then it stands to reason two more people reverted my input. I arrest my case. GDD1000 (talk) 15:38, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Can we get some mediation help here

I came here because this dispute seems to span at least 100 articles and on a couple of user's talk pages is probably where it's probably best discussed, but I don't know how to add a mediation request on them. There are a couple of users (User:Yankees10 and User:Chrisjnelson) who have decided in the interest of uniformity to change every NFL player's article from saying "was drafted by..." to "was originally drafted by..." Their intent was to convey that this is where the player's career began. Often when a player moves to another team their article says they "originally came from such and such team and now are at another team". To make all the articles consistent they decided to make every single article say "originally" in them, even the ones who haven't moved to another team.

Since doing this they've gotten their articles reverted many times. Using the word originally implies they have been drafted more than once, when in fact they have not. Or it may imply they've moved on to another team, where in fact many of them have not. Several users feel putting "originally" into an article where it doesn't make sense is wrong, others have pointed out that it's bad grammar. They've gotten into editing wars over it, which is not uncommon for these two users. Chrisjnelson has been blocked 17 times for edit warring over the last year and Yankees10 was just blocked last week.

There has been discussions on both of their user pages about it (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Yankees10#Originally_drafted and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Chrisjnelson#Originally. At first I thought this was kind of a dumb argument, but it has potential to spiral out of control (they've put so much work into changing all the articles that at this point they wouldn't admit they were wrong even if they knew they are) so it would be nice to get some more points of view or have a ruling on it. 67.137.0.28 (talk) 18:17, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

A mediation case has been started on this topic. Please see Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-05-05 Tyrell Johnson (American football) for more discussion on this subject. 67.137.0.28 (talk) 00:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)