Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:18, 1 November 2005

• ]

We are the Mediation Cabal, or maybe we're not, you never know, perhaps there is no such thing. You never know with cabals now, do you? (Well, actually, chances are that we do exist; The Mediation Cabal is intended to be the alpha implementation of the Misplaced Pages:Mediation (2005) informal mediation proposal). The Mediation Cabal provides unofficial, informal mediation for disputes on Misplaced Pages, and is composed of volunteers who wish to assist people in resolving conflicts.

So, what's this thing all about?

Well, we're glad you asked :-) Whereas the Mediation Committee provides "formal" mediation (officially done as per Misplaced Pages:Mediation), and the Arbitration Committee produces official resolutions and sanctions, we aren't at all official and are just normal Wikipedians. The job of the Mediation Cabal is basically to provide a friendly hand in resolving disputes without taking it through a formal channel.

Because we are unofficial, we don't impose sanctions on anyone or judge anyone's actions; we are just here to help people cool down, provide a third-person view on the matter, be nice to people and advise on how best to bring the problem to an end. And since we don't order anyone to do anything, there is nothing to lose by bringing an argument to us, and everything to gain. We're nice and laid back - no one has to argue their case or prove anything to us.

Whereas the Mediation Committee and the Arbitration Committee "accept" or "reject" requests, we will help anyone who would like us to, so we can nip arguments in the bud before they get to a point where official intervention is necessary (unless the matter has got to the point where we can't deal with it, when we will pass it through the appropriate channels).

Basically, if you (or someone else) is engaged in a bit of a conflict with someone, things are starting to get heated (but not yet a complete nuclear meltdown), or anything else which you think a gentle hand might help with - follow the instructions below to place a request, and a friendly cabalist will be sent to your rescue.

How does making a request to the cabal work?

Making a request for assistance

Communicating with the cabal in private

If you would prefer to ask the cabal to help you in private, or have matters relating to a mediation that you think would be best kept between yourself and the cabal, you can contact us in the following ways:

• Find us on the #wikipedia IRC channel on Freenode (just ask for Nicholas Turnbull, Kim Bruning, Kelly Martin or Fernando Rizo)
• E-mail Nicholas Turnbull: nicholas (dot) turnbull (at) gmail (dot) com (removing address munging).
• Kelly Martin can also be contacted by email or instant messenger; her contact methods are listed on her user page.

Tips when making a request

You're probably posting here to try and get someone to Not Be Angry At You. It helps to try to put things in as neutral terms as possible here, and make it possible to contact you by e-mail or Internet Relay Chat (IRC), that way the other person is less likely to feel hurt. :-)

The Cabalists

Below is a list of the cabalists involved in maintaining this wiki page; please note some cabalists don't post here, but will magically rise to the call of mediation simply by having this page on their watchlists. :-)

Note to aspiring cabalists: Simply put this page on your watchlist by clicking the "watch" tab at the top of this page, and help out with anything that interests you. From time to time, you might be assigned to a particular mediation case by someone - if you don't want to take the case on, just say so at the bottom of the request and delegate it to someone else.

• NicholasTurnbull Team Leader

• Fernando Rizo
• Kelly Martin on leave while serving on the Arbitration Committee
• Kim Bruning
• Inter
• Shauri
• WGFinley
• Evilphoenix
• Karmafist

Send for the Cabal! Requests for cabal mediation

For archive of Mediation Cabal cases that have been closed, see Closed Case Archives: Closed Cases Archive 1

Al-Ahbash

Mediation requested by

(sign below)

Phroziac 00:45, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

Who's involved?

McKhan, Muslimunity, Tearlach, and anyone else I might have missed who's been talking on the talk page.

What's going on?

POV warring.

What would you like to change about that?

I'd like to be able to unprotect the page, and get an NPOV version up.

If you'd prefer we work discreetly, how can we reach you?

n/a

Mediator response

Tricky one, but should be possible to solve. Assigning myself to this mediation. I will contact the involved parties shortly. --NicholasTurnbull 01:59, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Comments by others

Squaring the circle and Unit fraction

Mediation requested by

-- (☺drini♫|☎) 19:22, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Who's involved?

Drini, Rktect at least.

What's going on?

Rktect keeps pushing his personal beliefs into pages about egyptians knowing analytic geometry and circle squaring. Content gets removed and added. My explanations on why I removed the disupted content (which was disputed by Michael Hardy not me) on the talk page are becoming field for ad hominem attacks against me instead of discussing the content.

{addition by WikiFanatic:} Hi. As WikiFan04, I had a message on my talk page about a revert on Rope stretcher that was signed by Rktect. I was told that I "needed to be more careful in the future" as I "reverted correct edits". I am very sure I was reverting his personal beliefs. Just inserting my experiences with this user (Rktect).

What would you like to change about that?

I'd like the discussion to focus on the content rather than turning into personal attacks.

If you'd prefer we work discreetly, how can we reach you?

on IRC

Mediator response

Firstly, my sincerest apologies in dealing with this request - I propose discussion with the parties concerned to have the matter brought to mutual understanding and/or compromise where required. I will leave a talk page note on all the parties concerned and also comment on the talk page itself. I will act as your mediator for this case. --NicholasTurnbull 19:24, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Comments by others

Escalation to Arbitration Committee - Bogdanov Affair

This case is in the process of being escalated to the Arbitration Committee, and mediation efforts have been closed. Please see Misplaced Pages:Mediation Cabal/Closed Cases Archive 1#Bogdanov Affair for the previous case information.

Please note that this case has now been closed, and interested parties are kindly requested to hold debate about this case on Talk:Bogdanov Affair, not on any Mediation Cabal pages.

Mediator comments

Task assigned to User:Snowspinner --NicholasTurnbull 10:57, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Article is unlocked, bans being used to enforce the Bogandov's ban on the article, and they are revert on sight. This seems to be adequate at the moment. Snowspinner 19:13, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

User:Anakinskywalker

Mediation requested by

(sign below)

File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 02:18, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Who's involved?

File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 02:18, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

User:Anakinskywalker

What's going on?

He's harassing me on Talk:University of Ottawa, his talk page, and my own talk page.

What would you like to change about that?

I want his attacks removed from Talk:University of Ottawa and for him to be banned for life. An admin has banned him for harassment for the time being, but it's obnoxious.

If you'd prefer we work discreetly, how can we reach you?

Email.

Mediator response

Hmmm, the cabal can't ban people (officially at least), unfortunate though it is. Would reasoning and seeing if you folks can cooperate be helpful? That's what mediation is. If it doesn't help at least it doesn't hurt, and you can always take other dispute resolution steps later (and we can advise with that too) Kim Bruning 11:04, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Dear Spinboy: Thank you for your request. As Kim quite rightly pointed out, the Cabal cannot ban users in official terms - our role as mediators is to create peace between parties (or reduce the kicking and screaming, at least) by neutral intervention, not the implementation of punitive sanctions (which is the Arbcom's job). Let me ask you a question: would you be prepared to settle this with Anakinskywalker on neutral ground via discussion without recourse to disciplinary measures? If the answer is yes, then we can help you, since we can act to mediate between the two parties in order to create a neutral negotiation platform. If, on the other hand, you do not feel any kind of restorative action would be worthwhile, then it is the Arbitration Committee (see WP:Arb) whom you need to make a request to. Best regards, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) (e-mail) (cabal) 03:58, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Comments by others

User:Christopher Sundita and User:Node ue disallowing me to use a source

Those two users keep reverting the Moldovan language article, because of this fragment that I posted:

The Moldavian chronicler, Grigore Ureche (1590 - 1647), established in his "Letopiseţul Ţării Moldovei" (The Chronicles of the land of Moldavia) that Moldavian (Moldovan) and Wallachian (Romanian from Wallachia) are essentially the same language; and that Moldavians and Wallachians share the same ethnicity.

They reasoned by first saying that the source is too old (400 years old), and then by saying that the source is not reliable. Node first reverted by saying that the word "liberated" is not a neutral word - but that word was never used in my fragment. Sundita then started to debate the language it self, saying that languages can change over the course of time, etc., and that the source is no longer applicable.

The source is very reliable. The Prince was Moldavia agree with Ureche and awarded him land, and, later, Dimitrie Cantemir, another Prince of Moldavia, said the same thing about the 'Moldovan' language. I feel that I have the right to use sources on Wiki, but these people will simply not allow me to. See the history of the edits: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Moldovan_language&curid=226999&action=history

Can someone assist me in this dispute? I tried ANI, but I was ignored. Then I tried RfA, but someone removed it because, according to him, it escalated into a discussion. I then tried RfM, but was directed to this place, instead. Thanks! --Anittas 15:55, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Mediator response

Dear Anittas: The Cabal would be happy to assist you in resolving this matter, regardless of any objections raised by specific parties in the dispute. Primarily, we need to try to effect some sort of either consensus amongst editors, or agreement for compromise (the former being preferable) amongst the individual editors, and to come to an understanding over this sources issue. Regardless of where a debate is currently in progress, I am sure that we can at least provide a neutral environment for amicable exchange to occur and with some luck and cooperation from other dispute participants I am confident we should be able to bring this to an end. What I think I would consider the best course of action would be if all parties were to make a short statement of their perspective of the scenario on a Mediation Cabal discussion page, and then I would do my best in order to find an agreed resolution to meet the opinions of the majority, in addition to maintaining moderation over the page. Let me know on your thoughts regarding this. Best regards, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) (e-mail) (cabal) 03:49, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Comments by others

The dispute should be discussed on Talk:Moldovan language. I have placed messages on your talk page, and those of the other two disputing parties to this effect. Using reverts to resolve this dispute will be ineffective. Instead, use the talk page to discuss the various issues and allow others to contribute to the discussion as well. For what its worth, I find the assertion that a 400 year old source is not useful as less than satisfactory. There are innumerable things in the world greater than 400 years old which we regularly use as sources for information. --Durin 16:36, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Andy_Griffith_Show

Mediation requested by

(sign below)

Larry Mudd 01:30, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Who's involved?

Hackwrench vs. several, primarily ee60640, Larry Mudd, YBeayf.

What's going on?

A month-long edit war, which started when Hackwrench inserted an incoherant section about how The Andy Griffith Show was "morally questionable." This appears to be based on nothing more than personal opinion. The people who keep deleting it feel that the opinions inserted are off-topic, being divided into concerns like "Attitudes toward Women", "Attitudes toward Weapons", "Disrespect for Authority," etc. The general feeling is that Hackwrench is writing more about how his personal values apply to The Andy Griffith Show rather than about the show itself.

At one point, one user organized Hackwrench's concerns into a more concise, readable form, in the hopes of ending the edit war -- but even he feels that, more coherant or not, there's no reason to insert these opinions into the article.

My own personal feeling is that Hackwrench considers his opinion to be that of a significant minority, but since he is unable to demonstrate that there has ever been signficant public concern over whether this light entertainment program represents either a Moral Authority or a Moral Cancer, it seems obvious to me that including his opinion in the article gives it "undue weight."

Absurdly lengthy arguments over the appropriateness of Hackwrench's contribution can be found on the article's discussion page and

Neither side seems, at this point, to be willing to give an inch.

What would you like to change about that?

Both sides of this argument are convinced of their correctness. One side is clearly being obtuse. (There's even a possibility that it's the side I'm on.) Hackwrench feels that we're trying to quash a viewpoint, while (speaking for myself) I think the motivation for the removal of his work has more to do with what is appropriate for an encyclopedia. A neutral opinion on what is best for the article would be appreciated. A month of reverts seems like more than enough. I hope that both sides can agree to abide by the decision of whoever mediates the dispute, and would just like to end the sillyness, whichever side is being silly.

If you'd prefer we work discreetly, how can we reach you?

Lay it out, folks.

Mediator response

I believe a peaceful solution can be achieved, since all the parties involved appear to have interest in discussing. I'm assigning myself to this case. I'll leave a note at all involved users' talk pages and at the article's one as well asap. Shauri smile! 20:35, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution
• Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania