Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/20006 Archive 3

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! WikieZach| 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 Crayon 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 Crayon 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 = 
}}

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 Crayon Cake 20:49, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Assistance needed

I am taking an extended leave from Wikipedia immediately due to personal circumstances. I need someone to take over my one current case, at Yoshiaki Omura. The mediation is ongoing at Talk:Yoshiaki Omura/Mediation. The participants have been very civil and communicative, and I have just been guiding them through discussion each of their citations, which is where most of the contention lies.

No edit wars or personal attacks have surfaced, although just within the last few days another editor has come in and posted a large bit of text on the Talk page that I have not had time to fully read or understand. The editor also edited the article, and was reverted and referred to the mediation by another involved party. If someone can take this I would really appreciate it; I don't want to just leave them hanging. Please contact me ASAP if you can take it with any other questions (most information is on the mediation page) and I will post to the mediation page that I am leaving. --Aguerriero (talk) 21:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm seeing if I can help out the case, but I'm busy during weekdays so a more active mediator is still requested. Cowman109^Talk 13:34, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll take it. Wikipedia's False Prophet holla at me Improve Me 18:17, 16 September 2006 (UTC) sorry, I don't know what to do with it. Its not on a regular medcab page, and it is not going easy for me to take over. Sorry again, Wikipedia's False Prophet holla at me Improve Me 18:22, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-08-07_Yoshiaki_Omura :P. Cowman109^Talk 18:52, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll include this case in the open tasks section, if that's ok. Addhoc 13:19, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm workin on it - Che Nuevara 23:06, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Where's the backlog?

We have no new cases? How can that be? That boggles me :D. And hey, that rhymes - wee! Cowman109^Talk 21:35, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Request for help.

I recently took on a mediation case based at Talk:Conseil scolaire de district du Centre-Sud-Ouest, but am not getting anywhere. Both parties accept my mediation in principle, but maintain the other is entirely at fault and should stop making what they see as damaging edits. Every time I attempt to calm things down, another person posts inflammatory accusations, provoking fury from the other side. There seems little I can do. Should I close the mediation? Clearly there is a case here. Should I transfer it to the Mediation Committee? If so, how? Should I keep trying to engage with these editors, none of whom appears to be acting in bad faith? What should I do? Dev920 00:09, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I took a look at this when it was still in the new cases section and honestly, I'd have to advise they go to ArbCom. No, it's not pretty for either of them, but the dispute (which is basically namecalling, etc) will be settled. WP:RFAR has directions as to how to file a case, have one of them do it. :] Anyhow, that's what I'd suggest. Cheers. --Keitei (talk) 01:17, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Help!

Hello all – Real life suddenly decided to interfere with my Wiki-life, and I'm going to have to take a health break/family leave for an indefinite period of time. Because of this, I need someone to take over my one open mediation case at Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-09-12_Electrical_engineering_page. We had an automobile accident about 10 days ago, and some complications have developed because of it; also, a family member is hospitalized, and her needs take precedence over Wikipedia. I won't be back here full-time for at least two weeks, and the two parties to this mediation can't wait that long. I'm sorry to bail and run like this, but I also don't want to leave two people waiting on me for an indefinite period. Thanks very much, and I'll let you all know when I'm back, hopefully by the end of October. BaseballBaby 01:55, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I hope everything works out! I'll look into the case shortly. Cowman109^Talk 02:04, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I won't be able to look into the case due to family matters, so someone else will need to take the case. Cowman109^Talk 22:40, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I knew it!

There really is a cabal! --WikiSlasher 14:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Maybe that's what they want you to think. - Che Nuevara 17:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Who's they... --WikiSlasher 08:18, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Notification templates

I dont know if anyone has done this, but I created templates to place on user's talk pages and the talk page of the article itself.

This is the template for user's talk pages:

• {{User:Nwwaew/Mediation User Template|page-name|case-page-location}} ~~~~

where page-name is the location of the page in dispute and case-page-location is the location of the mediation case page.

This is the template for the article's talk page:

• {{User:Nwwaew/Mediation Page Template|case-page-location}} ~~~~

where case-page-location is the location of the mediation case page.

So far, the only problem I've noticed is that you have to put in the ~~~~ manually when you put the message on a page. Any comments? Nwwaew(My talk page) 22:27, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

You're supposed to have to put the ~~~~ in manually I thought - you do with most templates anyway --WikiSlasher 10:32, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Templates can add the markup: <noinclude><nowiki></noinclude>~~~~<noinclude></nowiki></noinclude>, which, ultimately ends up as ~~~~ on the page. Then when you save it, the server goes ahead and translates that into your signature. ~Kylu (u|t) 16:47, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Joining

Hello, I'd like to join the Cabal, and I've added the page to my watchlist. What else do I have to do? Is that it? I would appreciate some help; thank you in advance. | AndonicO Talk 13:31, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

You're going to find this a bit simplistic of an answer, but it's true: Find a case you're interested in, sign up as a mediator, and start. Really. I'd like to suggest reading over Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Suggestions for mediators first, but that's technically an optional step rather than mandatory. You can add your name to the list of mediators if you'd like, also. Just make sure you stay neutral during the mediation. Thanks! ~Kylu (u|t) 18:20, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Another mediator needed

Hello. I'm currently mediating the case on Ruckus Network (see Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-11-09 Ruckus Network and Talk:Ruckus Network/Mediation). However, I'm operating in a different time zone than the participants, so the discussion often heats up when I'm asleep. Thus, I'm requesting another mediator (preferably in the U.S./Canada time zones) to help out. Many thanks. Gzkn 01:08, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll look in on the debate and see if I can figure out what's transpired to this point. Please let me know anything that can help me better understand the current situation. →Bobby← 13:57, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

MedcabBot

Did MedcabBot just break? --Ideogram 03:02, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

No idea. They've approved my toolserver account but it's not active yet, and they haven't +bot'd KyluBot that I know of, so I can't kick on my botscript yet. Hopefully soon. ~Kylu (u|t) 03:09, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

It's definitely broken. I closed a couple cases half an hour ago and it has not updated. Who can fix it? --Ideogram 03:25, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Wolf needs to do it, but he's not on chat nor otherwise online, looks like. Mind leaving him a memo to fix the poor thing? ~Kylu (u|t) 03:44, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

It's back! --Ideogram 01:49, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

New cases page

I have created a new version of the cases page at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/New that removes the edit links, since the lists are not supposed to be edited directly. Please make sure MedcabBot can work with this new page and, if there are no objections, I will replace the old page. --Ideogram 06:33, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

That looks great! I have no idea whether that would work with the bot though - I would assume it would, but I'll see if I can hunt down Ericj and ask him. Cowman109^Talk 22:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it looks good. It will work with the bot, as long as it is at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases and the comments (the BEGIN and END ones) are included. I'd say go ahead and replace it at your leisure. :] --Keitei (talk) 15:36, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Done. I'm crossing my fingers. --Ideogram 18:34, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Ataturk

Hello, I'd appreciate it if someone looks at the Ataturk request. The page is currently blocked for all editing and was the subject of an edit war. --AW 17:29, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I've volunteered to look at the dispute.Shawn Fitzgibbons 05:12, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Looking for ...

Where is the message to applicants suggesting they volunteer to mediate someone else's case? --Ideogram 06:47, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

MedcabBot

Is the MedcabBot having an oil change? Addhoc 13:02, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I think Kylu is switching around the script to user:Kylubot, so there might be some confusion on that end. Cowman109^Talk 15:08, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Seeking a second mediator

I just accepted Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-11-18 Singapore Changi Airport, but I'd like a second mediator to help me, to avoid any claims of bias. I'm Singaporean, but have never worked on the article in question or related articles, but I feel it would be better to have someone else helping. – Chacor 09:55, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Mediator never turned up

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-11-03 Starwood Festival Can I not be afraid anymore since nothing is happening and the mediator never turned up? This mediation thing is not for real? What happens? Timmy12 22:22, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Do you feel this case still needs mediation or can I close it? Sorry about the mediator never turning up, this is an informal group and we don't have any control over individual mediators. Other than that, we are for real :-). If you have any other questions, feel free to ask me on my talkpage. --Ideogram 11:07, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Well today he turned up and asked one question. But people have asked a lot of questions since it openned. And I don't even understand the question he is asking. The person he is asking it to probably has given up as has everyone else. Could you check out the page and see what you think? Other interested people have left messages on his talk page and he never responded so they probably gave up too. Please check it out. It's important that this issue gets resolved. There are hundreds of articles involved on Starwood Festival, Association for Consciousness Exploration, WinterStar Symposium all by User:Rosencomet (who runs the festivals) with help from User:999, User:Ekajati, and User:Hanuman Das. Timmy12 17:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi, this case is still unresolved. Discussion between the parties in the absense of the mediator have not led to any consensus between the parties. --BostonMA ^talk 21:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Mediators list

Is it necessary to list Inactive mediators here? If we get rid of them, do we still need to put "Active" next to the remaining ones? I'm also thinking of going through the list to find out which are really still active and which just forgot to take their names off. --Ideogram 10:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Now I'm thinking of removing the list entirely. It will always be a maintenance hassle, and it serves no purpose but to advertise how many members our "nonexistent" cabal has. Scream now or I will be bold and you can scream later. --Ideogram 22:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I guess it's helpful in terms of finding people who may be interested in helping. It used to have more use when mediators were assigned to cases, but nonetheless before I had a big shiny coordinator button next to the name I sometimes found people saying 'Hey, I saw your name on the mediation cabal list, can you help me with X?'. So, the list does serve its purposes. As for inactive mediators, I guess it doesn't hurt or help, so I'm indifferent towards that. I guess it shows that people are still interested in mediating, but simply are not available to, so that could be good as well. Cowman109^Talk 22:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I just went through the list and looked at every user. I found twenty with enough recent activity to leave a note for requesting help, of which exactly four have taken up cases (and one has asked to co-mediate). This kind of ratio doesn't make for a very useful list, although I suppose it is better than nothing. The real question is, is this the right solution to this problem? If we want a way to find people interested in helping we need to make it their responsibility to keep it up-to-date instead of letting leftovers accummulate. --Ideogram 22:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Hm, good point. Perhaps in the interest of not hurting any feelings it would be better to ask users individually if they are still active in the interest of cleaning up the list. Cowman109^Talk 22:37, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Doing it once is bad enough, and I don't see anyone volunteering to keep doing it. --Ideogram 22:45, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Here's an idea. Make the list have only mediators who have actually mediated a case within the last month. --Ideogram 22:51, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

That smacks of regulation creep to me. A user should be able to regulate whether or not his name appears on the list unless there is some specific reason why it shouldn't. I don't think inactivity is a problem. Of course, if someone wants to be in charge of upkeep, they could go around asking people who are listed as inactive if they still want to appear on the list. - Che Nuevara 22:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

The list is unusable as it stands. I wouldn't have a problem with people putting their own name on the list if we could depend on them to remove it when necessary, but we can't. Having a bunch of names of people that don't respond to requests for help is a big problem. No one is going to upkeep it, are you? And if your name is on the list, do you want to be asked every month, or three months, or whatever, if you still want to be on the list? Do you have a solution that doesn't waste a bunch of time and effort? --Ideogram 00:54, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea why you call it regulation creep. Having a list at all is a regulation. Having active or inactive labels is a regulation. Calling people on the list "cabalists" is a regulation. If you don't want any regulations, get rid of the list entirely, or make clear it's a "vanity list" that anyone can scribble on which is entirely useless for asking for help. --Ideogram 01:01, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

If we deleted this list and made a new one labelled "Cabalists active in the last month" would that be regulation creep? --Ideogram 01:06, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

First, I didn't say I wanted no regulation, I said that I think this is unnecessarily much regulation. Some regulation is necessary; excessive regulation is counterproductive. Second, no, having a list is not regulation, since there is no requirement to be on the list, and calling people "cabalists" isn't regulation because, since someone doesn't actually have to be on the list to take cases, it doesn't really mean anything. So it's quite clear why I called it "regulation creep".

Why are you asking me if I am going to upkeep the list? You're the one who suggested an upkeep scheme. Are you going to do it? I don't understand your reaction to my comments. - Che Nuevara 01:12, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

(outdenting) I don't think you have thought about what I wrote. The most important question is, "What purpose does this list serve?" Cowman suggested it is a place to ask for help. I said I had examined every user on the list, asked twenty for help, and got four responses. This ratio indicates that the list is not serving that task.

If anyone can add themselves to the list, and dead names cannot be removed, what purpose does it serve? It would be a vanity list for people to make themselves feel good without having to do anything. I don't see it necessary for MedCabal to provide space for such a list. --Ideogram 01:33, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I understand that, but I'm not sure that having a fast guideline like "if you don't take a case in a month, you're off the list" isn't excessive. Who is going to monitor this? - Che Nuevara 01:41, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

There has to be some simple way to identify inactive/dead usernames. Monitoring of this kind would be a lot easier than any alternative I can think of. I was also thinking of writing a bot to do it. --Ideogram 01:45, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

How would this be monitored? By checking to see the last time someone edited a case page? - Che 01:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

We could use the close time of the most recent case. We would need to track down orphaned cases and close them manually, but we have to do that already. --Ideogram 05:26, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

A couple of questions. Keep in mind that I'm a mite bureauphobic, so I would tend to err on the side of flexibility:

1. Would the bot also automatically detect and re-add people who take new cases but aren't on the list?

   Yes.

2. Would the bot notify people that they've been removed from the list?

   No.

3. Would there be some way of re-adding one's self to indicate that you're willing to take a new case but there is no current backlog?

   No. I've never seen us have no backlog.

I'm not opposed to the idea in principle, and I wasn't even from the beginning; I'm just reserved, because regulation and automation tends to drastically reduce flexibility. I understand that this is not the end of the world, and that having a clean list of available mediators is important. I'm just being cautious. - Che Nuevara 05:41, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

As long as you are willing to discuss it with an open mind, I am fine. --Ideogram 05:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I think this is a reasonable idea. I think I would then rewrite the text about the list on the page to indicate "This is a list of people who recently mediated cases", because that's what it's actually there for, and not to imply that "This is a list of people associated with MedCab (if there is one)". This was my concern per my "regulation creep" comment earlier. - Che Nuevara 06:21, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think a bot can do this task. Due to the informal nature of what we do, and the lack of regulations on how mediators handle tasks, there are too many variables. For example, if you only looked at when my last mediation case closed or how often I edit case subpages, you would assume I am a largely inactive mediator. However, I take difficult cases that tend to last for weeks or even months, and I don't use the case subpage for discussion. So I might take a case and never revisit the list of active cases or the case subpage for much longer than a month. So a bot takes my name off the list - bad idea.

I don't think the point of the list is a place to ask for help. The place to ask for help is submitting a case, or the Cabal talk page. As with WikiProjects, the purpose of the "list" is to identify the size of the community involved in the project and to provide a medium for mass communication by coordinators if need be. No WikiProject prunes their member list by bot - those that do maintain them by removing inactive members do it manually because there is too much risk of error. --Ars Scriptor 15:07, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Ars Scriptor (can we still call you by you first name?) Firstly, when Ericj completes the change over to the new bot, then I don't think we should be continually asking him to modify it. Secondly, I think it would be more approprate to manually remove a few names that haven't taken a case in the last 6 months, than constantly adding and removing editors. Addhoc 16:56, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps anyone can add their name to the list, and the bot can automatically tag them as "recently active" or "recently inactive" as per the method described above. That seems logical to me, at least. - Che Nuevara 17:00, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

One of the reasons I joined Medcab was because it is so informal, and possibly doesn't exist. Isn't the point of this organization that anyone can be a mediator who has a good conscience and a knack for understanding disputes? does one have to be a member to mediate a dispute? So, in theory, there could be plenty of cabalists who aren't even listed but are very active, even if they don't ever visit the project page? Is it possible that some wikipedians are cabalists but have never even heard of us?My point is, a list of members (active or inactive) might not even be an accurate representation of participation, and perhaps a note of that should be made somewhere...Antimatter---talk--- 22:36, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

After thinking about it overnight, I am leaning back towards not having a list at all. There are many potential problems with a bot, and it is a lot of work. In its current form the list is basically useless. --Ideogram 22:53, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

This list is a terrible form of mass communication since every user has to be contacted individually. If we want mass communication we need a mailing list. --Ideogram 22:58, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

MedCabal is not like any WikiProject; for one thing it is considerably higher profile. And there is something inherently wrong with a group that denies its own existence having a participant list. --Ideogram 23:24, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

No more discussion? Can I delete the list? --Ideogram 03:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't actually have an objection to it, but you might want to field a few more opinions. - Che Nuevara 03:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll wait a few more days. --Ideogram 03:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Do you think you should run this by the other coordinators before deleting the list? Something else I thought of - when someone comes here to file a case, do we have more of a sense of credibility when there is a list of mediators? Would you file a case if there was no visible list of people who might take a case? --Ars Scriptor 04:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm putting it up for discussion here. I don't think the opinion of the coordinators carries any more or less weight than that of the ordinary members of the Cabal.

I really don't think having a list of people who aren't really involved just to gain some credibility is a good idea. Even if it helped (which I don't think it would) it would be false advertising. --Ideogram 13:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I disagree. I do think people who aren't taking cases should be deleted from the list, but I think a list of people who are currently working on cases should be there. Maybe a bot can be set up to see who has an active case, and place them on the list? --Ars Scriptor 16:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, this is what I was thinking about, but on second thought I'm not ready to write a bot yet. Also, they can always look at the case list to see who is actively mediating. --Ideogram 01:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I will agree with your assertion that no list is better than a useless list. Maybe would be better to delete until we can work out some useful way to do it. --Ars Scriptor 01:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey man, who's stepping on my toes?

Although I haven't requested any assistance on a case, It shows as requesting assistance from another mediator. What gives?SFinside 15:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Where do you see that? I only see a request for assistance on the one above yours. --Ars Scriptor 16:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I must be confused about the format of the page. My apologies.SFinside 16:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Please help me!

I was asked by someone to summarize Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-11-03 Starwood Festival which, I later learned, was the mediator that had been removed from the case. I felt it was strange that he should ask me. I did not understand his instructions and did not understand what was going on. His instructions were confusing to me, his signature went to a disguised addess, I did not know where my summary went. It turned out to be an Esperanza page; User:Geo.plrd/Esperanza. My ignorance -- also I am extremely anxious about this whole thing. And I am not good at technical things. The mediatior kept changing his signature to go different places. I was told not to worry about my summary or User:Geo.plrd/Esperanza's behavior but I did anyway.

Once User:Geo.plrd/Esperanza was off the case he offered to help User:Rosencomet, one of the parties in the unresolved mediation, fix up the articles in the unresolved mediation.

Now he is consulting with another party in the mediation about blocking me. He sent this message to User:999.

Would you be kind enough to look in my talk archives, 6 and 7, and tell me if Matisse's comments (to me)are rational? Geo. 18:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I am trying to determine if the comments to me show that this person needs to be blocked Geo. 18:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

What should I do? Sincerely, Mattisse(talk) 20:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I indented/italicized the other user's comments to make it a little more clear. I'll take a look later. - Che Nuevara 20:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I can't see any admin taking seriously a request to block you on those grounds. You are rightly confused about the status of your mediation case - it was confusing to me as well. I don't think Geo was trying to hide his identity; rather, he has a signature that takes you to different places depending on which letter you click. --Ars Scriptor 21:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for answering. Sincerely, Mattisse(talk) 21:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Question

Hmm, I'd forgotten that I'd put in a request for mediation by the cabal until it popped up in my watchlist again. Anyway how does one stop a request? I would go ahead and list the page for deletion but that seems presumptuous and I'm not sure of the policy. Anyway the user that was involved and that I'd requested mediation against/with in the first place was banned due to linkspamming and the problem has stopped. Thanks to anyone who replies! --ImmortalGoddezz 15:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• The easiest thing to do is just post a note on your request page explaining that the request is now moot. Since no one else had responded, I went ahead and closed your request,[2] assuming you meant the Razr medcab request. (If not, please let me know!). TheronJ 15:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Yup that's the one. Thanks I appreciate it! --ImmortalGoddezz 16:35, 13 December 2006 (UTC)