Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-08-19 White people: Difference between revisions

Wikipedia Mediation Cabal
Wikipedia Mediation Cabal
Status	open
Request date	Unknown
Requesting party	Unknown
Mediator(s)	Neranei (talk · contribs)

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 18:58, 20 August 2007

[[Category:Wikipedia Medcab active cases|]][[Category:Wikipedia medcab maintenance|]]

Request details

Protracted edit war going on at the page, with some editors pushing their personal POV above documented sources on the subject. This tends to spin non-mainstream POV as being mainstream, thus misrepresenting facts. Multiple comments of OR have also been made on both sides. The aim of this mediation is to achieve NPOV treatment of the subject in the article.

Who are the involved parties?

One side:

Other side:

Lesser involved, simply commenting editors and/or more neutral editors:

What's going on?

Ramdrake's Version: This article is caught in a tug-of-war between two polarized positions. A mediator is required to help us achieve NPOV treatment. If possible, we would need a mediator who's especially familiar with NPOV and OR issues, and who can help parties remain civil.

What would you like to change about that?

Achieve NPOV treatment of the article.

Mediator notes

I am checking in with participants; there seems to be enough people to facilitate discussion, thus, the discussion is being moved to the talk page. Neranei (talk) 01:34, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, this mediator does not have the time at Wp or the experience to deal with this complicated topic. This is a waste of time. This needs to go to formal mediation. --Kevin Murray 04:05, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with you Kevin, but don't want formal mediation --Phral 09:34, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oh God yes, I didn't even notice this is a brand new editor who offered to do the mediation? How does that even happen? What nonsense. This should just be deleted immediately as some kind of game-playing. This is a highly controversial article and needs the input of someone very experienced with rules and precedents on wikipedia. -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 09:41, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree, I suggest that you allow this editor to be the mediator for this case, give Neranei a chance to help the involved editors to find a compromise. One advice people often give is, don't judge a book by its cover. In this case, don't judge an editor based on age or how long an editor's been registered or how long he/she has been an active editor. Instead, Judge the editor based on the quality of his/her contributions. nat^tang 11:26, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Who said anything about his/her age? This editor has been substantilly active for two months at WP. We all need to start somewhere, but not as mediators for sensitive issues. Yes, give the new editors a chance, but let's be practical too. --Kevin Murray 12:04, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The age part was an example...If the involved editors do not want Neranei as mediator, will the involved editors accept me as mediator? nat^tang 12:20, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who are you and why are you involved in this discussion. You also have very little experience at WP, with your actual editing commencing in May 2007 [[1]] Your kind words are soothing, but not practicle to accomplishing our objective. --Kevin Murray 12:23, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I got involved in this discussion through WP:AN/I when someone decided to bring the heated and distruptive discussion to the AN/I. nat^tang 12:41, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you an admin? --Kevin Murray 13:05, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, but you don't have to be a sysop to be involved on the noticeboard. nat^tang 13:16, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A user doesn't have to be an admin or experienced in order to make useful contributions, especially when the solution being aimed at is calm agreement (or compromise) between the parties. Some of us have experience beyond wikipedia which is very useful in various on-wikipedia situations. This can't be proved, but WP:AGF would suggest giving people the benefit of the doubt and judging people on their actions in a given case or related cases, not by their time editing with a given account. SamBC(talk) 13:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but I didn't see any comment by Nat at the noticeboard so his comment regarding involvement seemed out of place; thus I wondered what his involvement is. So we have established that Nat is an observer, not a participant, not an admin, and assumed to be disinterested. Regardless, I don't see sufficiant experience to mediate this case. Sorry. --Kevin Murray 13:41, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If there is consensus to not have me as a mediator, I will gladly step down and have someone else handle the case. Neranei (talk) 14:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The reopening of the case should allow another mediator to work along side Neranei. Addhoc 18:22, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Administrative notes

Discussion previously found here has been moved to the talk page of this case. Please discuss there. Neranei (talk) 01:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 55: / Line 55: @@
 ::The reopening of the case should allow another mediator to work along side Neranei. [[User:Addhoc|Addhoc]] 18:22, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
-:::I didnt like the way Neranei let Ramdrake's biased and quite frankly incivil version stay while labelling my version as redundant and then removed it [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AMediation_Cabal%2FCases%2F2007-08-19_White_people&diff=152367954&oldid=152367253]
-:::And when Slrubenstein was being the Jewish head of Inquisition [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2007-08-19_White_people&diff=prev&oldid=152255319], he wasnt warned to tone it down while she told me "to remain civil, and refrain from personal attacks" [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AKarenAER&diff=152371370&oldid=152368792]. I'm sorry but I fail to see the neutrality here. And formal meditation is better as it is enforcing...[[User:KarenAER|KarenAER]] 18:43, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 === Administrative notes ===