Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-07-13 CTMU

Mediation Case: 2006-07-13 CTMU

Please observe Wikipedia:Etiquette and Talk Page Etiquette in disputes. If you submit complaints or insults your edits are likely to be removed by the mediator, any other refactoring of the mediation case by anybody but the mediator is likely to be reverted. If you are not satisfied with the mediation procedure please submit your complaints to Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal.

Request Information

Request made by: Byrgenwulf 15:30, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Byrgenwulf

Where is the issue taking place?: On the Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe page

Who's involved?: Myself and another user called DrL

What's going on?: I have added comments and concerns, as well as tags for factual disputes and references needed. While I acknowledge I went in heavy-handed at first, my most recent edit has been entirely neutral, and well backed up by facts and references.

However, DrL has now reverted this edit more than three times in the last hour and half or so. He insists that both the "disputed" tags and the edit must stay off the page until the dispute is solved, but I think that the tags should stay there (he's more than welcome to tag my own edit as disputed, but he deletes it instead).

What would you like to change about that?: I would like the "disputed" and "unreferenced" tags to stay, until consensus is reached.

 I would like it if my edits were not constantly reverted by DrL.
 I would appreciate some mediation with regards to content as well.

Would you prefer we work discreetly? If so, how can we reach you?: I think that trying to settle the whole matter like adults on the talk page would work...why not leave some of your thoughts there?

Thank you!

Mediator response

I've notified Byrgenwulf and DrL that I am willing to take the case either if consensus is not tried or reached on the Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe talk page. SynergeticMaggot 08:35, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still willing to take the case if there is no consensus on AfD either. Today should be the last day. SynergeticMaggot 20:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, SM. I made a note on the talk page that "I think it would have been great if all of the editors would have agreed to mediation and not just two (me and TS). At points I thought we were beginning to work cooperatively (at least three of the editors) only to have our efforts fall to a 4th party mass delete. A good solution would be to require that the editors of this article agree to mediation during the editing process until a version consensus is reached (we were close in a couple of spots). This last constructive edit by Byrgenwulf might be a fairly neutral place to start. DrL 21:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)"[reply]

So maybe we will work together sometime in the future :) DrL 23:29, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I can't force any editors, contributing or not, to participate in mediation. They choose this on their own. My job as mediator is to help out the best I can, by listening, advice giving and suggesting various compromises based on the circumstances. The page is protected for now. And if I'm not mistaken, by reviewing the AfD page, there is no consensus as to it being deleted, so chances are, it will be kept for that reason. If its kept, consensus would need to be attempted again, by using a survey on its talk page. Then unprotection can be requested. This is the best advice I can give right now, and I hope it helps. SynergeticMaggot 01:51, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I see the article has been deleted. Anyone want to try Deletion review? SynergeticMaggot 02:35, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now ongoing. See here for how it works, and here to voice your opinion. Tim Smith 04:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Closing case. Article has been delete and deletion review shows its not likely to be undeleted. SynergeticMaggot 21:52, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you know, you could make that less unlikely by weighing in... :) Tim Smith 23:06, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, as mediator I try not to get involved. But now that its closed I might. SynergeticMaggot 23:08, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update: It's now neck and neck, and about to close. Every voice counts! Tim Smith 02:55, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Compromise offers

This section is for listing and discussing compromise offers.

Discussion

While using the talk page of the article in question to solve a dispute is encouraged to involve a larger audience, feel free to discuss the case below if that is not possible. Other mediators are also encouraged to join in on the discussion as Wikipedia is based on consensus.

Thanks, SynergeticMaggot, for the offer. As it happens, someone recommened that I nominate the article for AfD anyway, which I have done...it appears to be unsalvageable, especially since the policy of reverting edits which are other than 100% slanted to glorify the idea in question has continued; and the notability of the subject of the article is highly questionable to boot, among many other concerns. So, pending the outcome of the AfD (which may well result in the merge proposed on the article page, it seems that mediation won't be necessary. Moreover, the user who was hassling me more than DrL (she's recently become quite conciliatory), Asmodeus, has been blocked because of continued personal attacks on me and others. So, again, thanks for the offer of help but it looks like it won't be needed anyway. Byrgenwulf 09:05, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would be happy to work out a solution regarding this article. Please view the edit history. I have been trying to reason with Bygenwulf, et al, but it's not been easy. They make rapid NPOV changes and massive deletes destroying the work of other editors. I myself have made very few (and very minor) edits. I am just trying to preserve the article and its evolution (rather than destruction). Can you please step in and set up a guideline regarding pace and quatity of editing for this article or whatever else you can think of so that change can occur in a more reasoned fashion? Thank you, in advance for your mediation efforts. DrL 13:29, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to know if I can invite others (ScienceApologist, who has been doing massive deletes of late, and TimSmith, the articles author). These are the most active editors currently. In fact, I thought Byrgenwulf and the other editors had been working fairly well together when ScienceApologist started his "clean-up". So I think he needs to be here. Let me know if I should invite him or if that is for the mediator to decide. Thx. DrL 13:48, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First, I'd like to to thank you both for stopping by and taking the time to comment. I'm pleased to see that there is desire for mediation. As AfD is concerned, this is out of my hands. The community will decide whether or not its suitable for Wikipedia, and from the looks of it, it might not survive. My best advice for you DrL, is to kindly ask Byrgenwulf to withdraw his nomination. This will result in a speedy keep and close the nomination. If it the article is to be kept, then I wouldnt forsee a problem with other editors stopping by in order to help. Also, while the the process of AfD is current (which has 5 days as long as someone doesnt yell Speedy Delete!), you can still clean it up and add citations. This will possibly sway others from casting a delete vote, or changing their existing vote. I'll be monitoring the AfD nom to await its outcome. SynergeticMaggot 15:58, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I support mediation. I hope we can all work together to improve the article. Tim Smith 18:08, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your efforts, Tim. I'm afraid that you and I are the only ones willing to do that. DrL 14:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]