Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/20006 Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

		Archives	2005 Jan - Dec 2006 Jan - May \| May - Jul \| Aug - Dec 2007 Jan - Feb \| Mar - Apr \| May - Aug \| Sep - Dec 2008 Jan - Mar \| Apr - Jun \| Jul - Sep\| Oct - Dec 2009 Jan - Mar \| Apr-Jun \| Jul-Dec 2010 Jan - Apr \| May - Aug \| Sep-Dec 2011 Jan - Dec 2012 Jan - Dec

Cabals and all that

This "cabal" stuff is anachrnistic. Some comment is deserved, And the threatening, conspiratorial graf deserves to be excised; it does not help arbitration; rather, it seems like an attempt at intimidation.

This is the paragraph that I added, which was cut: - (The term and usage of cabal here dates back to the heyday of usenet, when some people believed that sysadmins acted in concert without consideration for users. Before the boom in commercial ISPs in the mid-1990s, administrator action could disrupt or even cut off one's only route to Internet services. The term cabal invoked a sense of powerlessness and frustration on behalf of users, which those with technical power were free to inflict. Presumably the use here is tongue in cheek.)

If you guys intend on actually being benign helpers, what's with the "cabal" business anyway? I thought it died with gopher servers and grepping newsfeed. Maybe the mediators need mediation. Yakuman 02:02, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

CQJ said: "that does not permit you to break WP:POINT and essentially and outright vandalize the Mediation Cabal page. If you feel as strongly after I am done posting this message, you can go to the Mediation Cabal talk page and discuss your feelings, but please don't change the page without consensus in the future."

This statement is silly. I did not vandalize the page. I made helpful corrections. If you cannot accept them, then I invite you get to get a page on any one of countless servers! But this game of fake conspiracies and "cabals" is what the Web and commercial ISPs were supposed to free us from!

Sombody else said: "Maybe it would be better to bring the issue on the talk page, and allow user group to decide for themselves what do they want to write on their page?"

Last time I checked, this was a public forum and apropos changes were INVITED. So go ahead and call me a clueness newbie. I'm a big boy. I can take it. Yakuman 02:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is to be written from the NPOV. Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Wikipedia's False Prophet holla at me Improve Me 01:50, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, wait. I __DID__ get called a clueless newbie. You see why I was complaining about the name "cabal." It suggests an army of little tin gods with perl scripts. 02:13, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

First off. Your paragraph was a nice little summation of WP:TINC, which most editors that have been on Wikipedia for a while know and understand. Cabalism is a running joke here, and it's everywhere in Wiki-culture. There's a cabal for this, a cabal for that, blah blah blah. That, and it's a shout back to the Usenet days. While anachronistic and deprecated, it's a term that we still use, and the introduction paragraph is just a continuation of the same "There is no Cabal" running joke elsewhere on Wikipedia. You requoted your edit summary above. The paragraph isn't a threat at all. It's just a tongue-in-cheek approach to what in the past was a long, drawn out process that took a long time and was plainly a pain in the ass, Mediation.

Our approach is a very unregimented, fly-by-night style of mediation, an informal approach. So by calling ourselves the Mediation Cabal and continuing in a very loose manner, it's another tongue-in-cheek approach to something which is, as a rule, very dry and boring.

Now again, I point you back to WP:POINT. Don't disrupt Wikipedia or it's operations to make a point, which is exactly what you did. I did state that you did vandalize - and I can't find anything to suggest that your intent was not vandalistic or disruptive in nature. I won't retract that statement at all. Nor did blanking my comments to you on your talk page help, either. If you're upset about a Mediation case against you, well, that's on you.

Your changes were reverted, not deleted, reverted because you took said action without consensus and in detriment to the encyclopedia and its operation. You were left a standard test-1n vandalism warning because that's standard procedure to give a person the benefit of the doubt. At no time were you called a clueless newbie - you were referred to the proper policies to consult before continuing submitting material to Wikipedia.

And then came the topping on the ice cream: You deleted my text without cause. If you think you impress people by calling yourself a cabal member, go back to the 1980s. Yakuman 02:19, 28 August 2006 (UTC), in addition, to False Prophet, If you wish to talk to me, send your own messages. Do not send me auto-generated spam. Yakuman 02:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC).

I will say this once, and once only. Do not persist on the path that you're heading down. You will find that Wikipedia editors as a whole do not condone behavior against WP:CIVIL or our other policies. Now, if you have anything to say in regards to what is stated on the Mediation Cabal talk page other than the ranting you've already done, feel free to go ahead. CQJ 02:40, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

This is my last comment on the subject in this forum: Like I said, the cabal joke isn't funny. It wasn't funny in the 1980s. My intent was reconciliation, not vandalism. The term and use of the word "cabal" is itself uncivil because it asumes a threatened arbitrary use of power, which is not helping toward a healthy working relationship. Yakuman 02:56, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, we're done. :) Yakuman's done trying to help MedCab, and MedCab people are done with Yakuman. I think the best thing to do in this case might just be to let eachother go our seperate ways, since Yakuman seems to be offended by the name and reasoning for our mediation disorganization. Forgive and forget. :) ~Kylu (u|t) 03:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Aspiring Cabalist

So, how do you join this thing? Just add your name to the list and take a case? Lurker ^talk 16:55, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Well - yes. :) It's a highly informal and (hopefully) autonomous process so we rely on mediators watching out for eachother on tough cases - the most important thing you should do is ask for help should things get tough. Cowman109^Talk 17:00, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

May I join?

I would love to help with mediation. So, I would like to know how I can join, and if I can help. Thanks! Wiki eZach| talk 01:58, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

As it's an informal process, you can go ahead and volunteer to mediate a case in the new cases section. I would recommend that you read Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Suggestions for mediators first for some guidelines, and I cannot stress enough the importance of asking for help should you feel lost or are experiencing difficulty. Also, feel free to add yourself to the list of cabalists on the main page. Cowman109^Talk 02:17, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Edit conflict :) I will also add that before I took my first case, I looked at how some other mediators handled things, but ultimately it's up to you. Just remember to stay neutral and help them reach a consensus. I and others are always available to help or answer questions. --Aguerriero (talk) 02:20, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Question about how to approach a case

I'm interested in mediating, and hope to choose a case soon; I'm still reading policies and cases for now so I can educate myself a little more before diving in. That brought up one question, which I thought I'd ask here.

In the John Prescott case, currently "new", the conflict was over salacious allegations about Prescott. The case seems to have been resolved well. However, if I'd been mediating, I'd have said some slightly different things than the mediator involved (User:CQJ). This is not at all a criticism of CQJ; I'm trying to understand what approaches are thought to be best, and just where to draw the line between trying to help people come to an agreement, on the one hand, and letting them know when they are contravening WP policies, on the other.

In this case the salacious allegations were that Prescott had a small penis. One party to the mediation commented on the talk page that although that itself was not verifiable, the fact that the allegations were widely known and discussed in the UK, and that Prescott was an object of ridicule as a result, was indeed verifiable and worthy of inclusion.

CQJ asked for sources before taking the case. I think this was designed to remind the participants that the policies on verifiability and reliable sources would apply, and short cut the discussion. As I said above, this has apparently been successful.

I agree that those two policies apply. I think my reflex would have been to say that I'd take the case, and try to get agreement from the participants over the extent of the relevance of those policies to the proposed additional text. Would that have been wrong? CQJ's comment in the case made it clear he was amused, but willing to take it, and may have struck just the right note to defuse tension. But I was surprised when I first saw it, because I wasn't expecting to see a mediator refuse to take a case.

I'd be glad of any comments. Thanks -- Mike Christie 17:21, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, we are an informal process so there are, of course, different ways about doing things. In that case in particular, with information such as that, especially on a living person per WP:LIVING, verifiability is key. If people went about insulting the size of his manhood and he stumbled upon the Wikipedia entry, I'm sure a firestorm would stir up. Your method could have worked too, I'm sure. I honestly don't think such information is relevant, but even if it was relevant, unless there is a verifiable source that says the belief is indeed true and it's been documented, verifiablility is often the most important thing in a biography of a living person (it should be on all articles, anyway). Cowman109^Talk 17:30, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Wow, why didn't anyone come and get me? (laughing out loud). Essentially, I took a look at everything, and the case was requested by...Wait for it....

Johnprescottssecretlovechild.

Case requested by a user whose sole intent was probably going to be to nail the John Prescott article with a bunch of garbage. I know that's not WP:AGF, but a guy called Johnprescottssecretlovechild editing the John Prescott article, trying to say that he's got a large or nonexistent penis, well...you can see the humor in that :-). Like Cowman said, we have to be very careful with living biographical articles for our good, the Foundation's good, and the good of the person being covered, and everything must apply to WP:V, WP:OR, WP:NPA, and WP:LIVING. I take a strict interpretation of the trifecta and most Wikipedia policy, including WP:IAR, but in this case, WP:IAR would have probably gotten someone in some major trouble once Prescott's office found out, in addition, there's other users who need the help of the MedCab over someone who wants to add something about an MP's penis that can't meet verifiability or original research standards off the bat. So I short-circuited the process and said the only way I'd work with it was to get three verifiable sources off the bat. Bada bing, bada boom. CQJ 15:41, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Backlog

I've noticed a backlog of open cases. Is there anything we can do to close cases that are still left open, which are in fact old? Possibly ask the mediator to close it? Review the case and close it ourseleves? SynergeticMaggot 02:12, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I recently closed about 6 innactive cases - I usually look at the old ones that don't seem to be active and leave a note in the mediator response section asking if the case is innactive. After a few days, if there is no response, I leave a note asking those involved to file a new case request if they are still having issues and I change the category to closed. Feel free to help clearing out the old ones that no longer seem to be in need of assistance. In many cases disputes just die down with time, which helps :). Cowman109^Talk 02:45, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Will do. I just find that discussion first in these cases are going to be beneficial. I recently just had a close (for another mediator) I did blow up on my RfA. :) Everything was worked out but I gave it some thought and decided that I should at least address the issue here first. SynergeticMaggot 02:49, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Do you mean that someone brought up the manner in which you closed a mediation case in your RfA? I would love to take another case right now, but I got involved in an "unofficial" case that is taking up a lot of my time. --Aguerriero (talk) 02:52, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Once I handle a few off wiki things and a few off-cabal cases I'll try to cut the backlog in half as well :P Cowman109^Talk 03:06, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, get to work, ya slacker! It's not like you have your own RfA going right now... :) --Aguerriero (talk) 03:11, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Cowman109^Talk Sighs.

Hi,

UN Resolutions is mentioned in the "OpenTasks" section, but I think is solved
John Prescott has reached a compromise and I think is also solved
Scally is effectively solved, it was only about opposing a merge proposal
Catman Cohen is closed, because the article has been deleted
The Root of All Evil doesn't really seem to have a dispute

When I grow up can I join the cabal? Addhoc 16:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I closed the Catman Cohen case and I will leave notes on the medcab case pages of the other ones asking if they can be closed - thanks :D. In the future, though, don't hesitate to do so yourself se this is an informal process, such that anyone can handle the closing of cases (though it's best to be careful by asking to make surei t's okay to close it first, of course). Cowman109^Talk 17:09, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Cowman109: There is a case at the top of the list in which you corresponded with another user via e-mail. I'm gonna close that one out if you didnt already. SynergeticMaggot 17:12, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Hm - which one is that? Oh, and I haven't responded to Scally or The Root of All Evil - I'm not too sure if those cases are necessarily over with. There seems to still be the need for some help there as people are having some heated discussions in the talk pages. Cowman109^Talk 17:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant at the very top of the cases list, not the one provided by Addhoc. I've responded on your talk page about it. SynergeticMaggot 17:48, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Also Bonza bottler day is closed, because the article has been deleted. Addhoc 12:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Case request

Unregistered users can't enter a case.

And no, I don't want to register, and I have a reason for not doing so. But I wanted to add Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-08-12 Coulrophobia and didn't realise you had to start a new article in order to do so. 69.181.120.218 06:44, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I have created the case page at Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-08-12_Coulrophobia for you. Cowman109^Talk 06:52, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Merci69.181.120.218 23:05, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Question about the CSICOP case

I volunteered to mediate the CSICOP case. There has been substantial mediation in the past, which went on hiatus because the mediator left the case. One participant has indicated that they do not wish to go through mediation; see the talk page. I'm inclined to let them know I'll wait a week to see if there is a change of mind. However, after that, what happens to the case? The participant who requested mediation is still willing to participate. Should I proceed with that participant alone, and attempt to make appropriate edits? Any advice would be appreciated. Thanks in advance -- Mike Christie 13:51, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

FYI, we appear to have gotten past the obstacle, so I think I'm OK now. Thanks. Mike Christie 23:09, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

The new case templates!

As some of you may have noticed, we have now implemented a template for cases that specifically allows the bot to do three things - it lists the category, lists the name of the mediator on the case page, and lists the status of the case as how you would like to say it. Here is how it works:

At the top of the page you'll see this:


{{Medcabstatus
|status = open
|article = 
|requestor = 
|parties = 
|mediators = 
|comment = 
}}

Status There are three options for status: new, open, and closed. These affect the listing of the case - new is in new cases of course, open goes into the open cases section, and closed simply delists the case (we're still not archiving cases yet, so they're hiding in the closed cases category).

Article Here you can list the name of the article, the source of the dispute. At the moment you just write the name of the article with [[ and ]] around it, so you can list multiple links if needed. This does not affect anything, but just lists the name of the article at the top of the case page.

Requestor, here you can put the name of the requester - once again, it's just to make the top of the page look nice and organized.

Parties, here you list the parties, same as above.

Mediators, the mediators listing shows up on the case list. Preferably you could use the format {{user|username}}, but anything works.

Comment, this also shows up on the case list. If you feel it is necessary, please put a short comment here about the status of the case, such as needs new mediator, or waiting for parties to respond. This is entirely optional, however, though in some cases it is good to signal to other mediators that there may be some help needed.

And that's about it! Any questions? This should be implemented shortly into the case list, and the format of it is still changeable should any issues arise. Cowman109^Talk 20:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for putting this together; I really like the automatic mdoerator and status listings on the main page that this generates. Very nice. Mike Christie (talk) 14:27, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, dear, I didn't mention him - thank User:Ericj for all of this, as he's the mastermind behind the bot and the recent changes :D. Cowman109^Talk 14:59, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for mentioning me! I changed your information slightly, after your requests, so the [[ ]] is now needed in the article link. It makes it possible to list multiple pages, too. It doesn't matter if they're not linked, though. Tell me if there are any problems. --Ericj 22:20, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, thanks, Ericj; very nice. One enhancement occurs to me that would be handy; is it possible to have the display on the main page show the date of last update to the template or the case? Automatically, if possible. That way it would be possible to see cases that appear to have gone inactive, or at least where the mediation may have gone inactive. Mike Christie (talk) 03:41, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Ahah, Ericj actually brought up the possibility of getting some sort of color code system or something similar that could show case pages that were left unupdated, but I felt that when mediation occurs on the talk page of articles instead of on the case page, the information could be skewed. We'll see what others think, though :). Cowman109^Talk 03:46, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Is there any way to make the status box so it doesn't overlap other stuff on the case page? On my case, the box overlaps the first heading on the page, and the box reminding people about etiquette. --Aguerriero (talk) 01:41, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Hm, I tried moving it down below the header in preview and that seems to fix it, but I think that might also make it look worse in other cases if it's done that way - the text in the etiquette box still remains readable; it's just pushed to the side. We can always play around with the position though and see which works in all situations.. Cowman109^Talk 01:50, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Just add a bunch of <br> tags below the template, and it'll fix the format-vomit. --The Prophet Wizard of the Cray on Cake 20:49, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Case didn't show up

Hi, a few hours ago, I created a Request and it showed up on the list. What's up? -- Selmo 21:44, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-08-25 Anime

I think the bot hasnt updated yet. I'll check the format to make sure though. SynergeticMaggot 21:46, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Everything looks fine. Its in the category. Either the bot is broke or it just hasnt updated yet. SynergeticMaggot 21:49, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

It does look like the bot went kaput. I'll speak with Ericj and see what's up... Cowman109^Talk 21:54, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I've added the case manually. SynergeticMaggot 21:59, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. -- Selmo 22:02, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Not a problem :) SynergeticMaggot 22:03, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Should we be so harsh?

I'm somewhat stunned with our attitude to Yakuman after his edit. I don't support him, but calling his edit vandalism and issuing a warning is, at least, quite harsh. Well, he did an edit to a page that people generally agree he should avoid editing, but there is no evedence ithat it was a bad-faith edit with destructive purpose, what vandalism is. He may have had good intentions or bad intentions, but it's a policy to assume good faith until proven otherwise. We could just revert that edit and forget about it - what was the purpose of vandalism warning? --CP/M^comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 13:30, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think there was anything harsh about the reaction. WP:AGF only goes so far. There is a point where it is clear that someone has an axe to grind, and making such an edit to an established project page without any discussion is trolling. I don't know if calling it vandalism was appropriate, but it was definitely out of line and disruptive. --Aguerriero (talk) 13:53, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree I dont think the initial comments and warnings at Yakumen were harsh - then he broke WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF and WP:POINT. Especially by his posts here on this talk page. From there on it was his own doing unfortunately. He claims not to be a newbie, and he isn't in respect of time, but in policy knowledge he seems to be very lapse - especially considering consensus is something that drives WP, and he ignored it!!! It is unfortunate and if he had taken time to discuss things here first then maybe it would have gone much better. --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk)(Review me) 14:31, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Quit beating around the bush and sugarcoating it, CP/M. You're mad at me, so why didn't you just say it? He broke WP:CIVIL and WP:POINT in his inital edit, then went over to your page and said some stuff, then threw some nasty comments at me, then went to False Prophet's page and did the same. Then he came here and after he was told, twice, that the name is pretty much a total joke, he still went back to the case page where he was named a disputant and stated that we defamed him and started Wikilawyering on his case page and his user talk page. Now I've apologized here for my blatant failures to follow WP:AGF and calling his edit outright vandalism. I told the guy what's going on, and I made it nice and sweet and sugary for him too. So, I must ask, why are you bringing this up, because I really feel like you're pouring salt in my wounds here.

More to come later. CQJ 14:40, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Mad at you? Why would I? I'm not in any way involved at this, and never contacted him before.

No, I just said that our reaction to that simple edit (specifically warning) looks a bit excessive to me. Sorry if I offend you, but, maybe, it would be better to generally be more forgiving. Our project page and name may really cause wrong associations for someone with malfunctioning sense of humor. His reaction to the warning was really way over the edge, but I feel like it could be avoided altogether. Sorry if I misunderstood something. CP/M^comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 15:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Which is precisely why I removed the topic. It was doing no good and was only an avenue of yelling at eachother, so I archived it. Matter solved. Cowman109^Talk 16:38, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Hospitality Club and hospitality service

Amarent keeps on removing information that is perfectly valid from Hospitality Club, and adding information that has no references to hospitality service. Please mediate! Guaka 19:05, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not yet a member of the mediation cabal, but I'll give a third opinion if that could be useful. The info you're adding, that Amarent keeps removing, appears to be original research. While the information you are removing that Amarent introduces, could be considered unencyclopedic. Currently, both Amarent's and your information has been removed. If you want to reintroduce your paragraph, then could you indicate on the talk page why this isn't original research. Similarly, Amarent should indicate why his information should be considered encyclopedic. Thanks, Addhoc 13:13, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Medcab chat

I've noticed a large bunch of mediators never come on the IRC chatroom we have set up. So... just reminding everyone that we have a IRC chatroom ( irc://irc.freenode.net/Wikipedia-medcab ). IRC is a suprisingly useful method of communicating, and I'd love to see everyone using it a bit more. Yay! --The Prophet Wizard of the Cray on Cake 22:50, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

First time I've tried to use Mediation of course. Tell you for sure, the reaction I got gives me no confidence that the group intends either to be helpful nor intends to be responsible for their stated purpose. [1] Terryeo 19:35, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

The new case templates!

As some of you may have noticed, we have now implemented a template for cases that specifically allows the bot to do three things - it lists the category, lists the name of the mediator on the case page, and lists the status of the case as how you would like to say it. Here is how it works:

At the top of the page you'll see this:


{{Medcabstatus
|status = open
|article = 
|requestor = 
|parties = 
|mediators = 
|comment = 
}}