User talk:CQJ/archive02

Jane's All the World's Aircraft
The Intro to the 1984 edition of Janes All the World's Aircraft reads: ''Grumman announced on 15 January 1969 that it had been selected as winner of the design competiion for a carrier based fighter for the US Navy. Known as the VFX during the competitive phase of the programme, this aircraft was later designated F-14. First flight....''

It goes on to blather about technical details but does not discuss the history. My online subscription to Jane's Defence Weekly goes back to 1993 but that's pretty useless from a historical point of view - JDW is a commentary on current, not historical affairs; the first 20 or so articles I pulled up weren't very enlightening. The magazine only goes back to 1983 anyway, it was previously called Jane's Defense Review from 1980-83.

--Mmx1 20:40, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Further Sources
From Fighter combat in the Jet Age, by David Isby, p126 ''After their disappointing combat debut in the 1960's the improved Sparrow AAM reaped much success over north Vietnam in 1972 and over the Middle East the following year. This drastic reversal in the missile's fortunes had at last underlined the increasing importance of the BVR weapon. As always, one of the primary practitioners of these type of fighter operations was the USN, whose F-14 Tomcat, armed with long-range Phoenix AAM's, was introduced inthe 1970's. it was intended to defeat both missile-armed Soviet bombers and the weapons themselves when launched from submarines or warships against US carriers. (break) The British faced a similar threat in the North Atlantic....''

Excuse the length but I wanted to make sure it's clear I wasn't omitting anything or taking anything out of context.

On an unrelated note, supporting my assertion that the variable-swing was intially driven by the dash/landing speed requirement, from Brassey's Modern Fighters by Mike Spick, ''Development: Long range AAM's and a compatible radar and weapons control system developed for the defunct F-111B were specified for the F-14. These needed a big fighter to carry them, making two powerful engines essential. the only real candidate at that time was the Pratt & Whitney TF30 turbofan, as used in the F-111, but it was known to be sensitive to disturbed airflow. To minimize this, a "straight-through" configuration was used, with a huge radome and two-man cockpit in a frontal nacelle, flanked by variable intakes needed for Mach 2 plus. The engines, following straight lines from the intakes, were thus well spaced, and were joined by a pakcake aft fuselage. This had the added advantage of giving extra lifting area. This was just as well. The combination of supersonic speed, extended loiter time, and a low speed, low alpha approach, was met by a variable-sweep wing. but these are inevitably small, giving a high wing loading; the additional lifting area provided by the pancake offset this by a remarkable amount.''

--Mmx1 21:26, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

As an aside (only since you asked....many, many thanks for reading all the material Matador and I have thrown at you, mediation is really a thankless job), the Tomcat was replaced primarily because it was too expensive and difficult to maintain, things that don't seem important on paper but wash out very significantly in operational use. On paper the Tomcat had better range and payload than its replacement, but if it's only available half the time that a SH is (I don't have the exact numbers but it was quite significant), that advantage is negated. The priorities on a carrier differ significantly from land bases - constraints of space for planes, parts, and mechanics are very important and if you can field an effective force twice (or greater) the size due to the multi-mission capability of the SH and its reliability, the advantage goes to numerical preponderance over some % increase in range. That's what the debate has really boiled down to. Sure, if you compare specs there's some merit to the debate. But aircraft don't joust 1-1 in an arena, they operate in concert with the many other moving parts of the Navy, and in that context the difference was quite significant. --Mmx1 22:28, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Time Out
Gotcha. --Mmx1 22:48, 11 July 2006 (UTC) oh maaaaaan..... --matador300 23:55, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm looking into this F-18 replacement thing. Evidently nobody has anything nice to say about the Super Hornet except that 1) it' a bunch better than the regular Hornet and 2) the F-14 is history so there's no point in comparing the Super Hornet against a plane that isn't flying. The Super Hornet was sold as a plane that could replace the smaller F-18 plus the A-6 with absolutely no idea it might replace the f-14. Sounds like a massive screw up to me, and the tone of most messages on the topic are about the same. Don't know just how this could be documented on the WP with mmx around though. --matador300 23:55, 11 July 2006 (UTC).


 * What's up with giving up on the mediation, declaring Mmx wrong factually, but now I'm the bad boy?? --matador300 22:43, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I think your comments here, at your user page, and to LWF speak for themselves in this case. Perhaps you ought to consider what you've said to others, then ask yourself..."Why did mediation fail?"


 * You were asked to comply with WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, and WP:OWN throughout the mediation. You were asked to stop editing aircraft related articles and to play nice, however, you didn't.  After I specifically asked you not to edit anything related to aircraft, you decided to edit five articles related to disputed content and six others that had to do with the Vietnamese Air Force and/or the Vietnam War.  You went to AfD and started personal attacks with several other users, and you mentioned your dispute with Mmx there when he had nothing to do with the AfD in question.  I have presented multiple opportunities for you to provide sources that will be accepted by Wikipedia editors other than an unconfirmed Grumman VP statement on Modern Marvels and a FAS article that doesn't say anything about a variable-sweep wing beyond its existence to support a mixed mission profile, yet you've chosen to concentrate on spreading the dispute to other articles rather than fix the ones that are already broken. I don't know what you expect me to have done for your side of the dispute, but for you to accuse me of siding with Mmx and calling you a "bad boy" after what I've attempted to do for you and Mmx and the F-14 article is downright bad taste on your part after some of the outbursts you've caused and some of the tactics you've used.  You essentially  stalled the mediation and any chance of a truly neutral outcome by some of the shenanigans you've engaged in within the last week, and I see no reason to re-open the case.


 * I wish you the best of luck in your future endeavors. CQJ 01:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Hi, thanks for getting back to me on that. It seems my comment has caused some confusion, I intended to say that it was because the user had refused to participate that it didn't work and not through any fault of the Mediation Cabal. Thanks. Abcdefghijklm 16:42, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

MedCab
Please point me in the right direction for that. What story exactly? Tyrenius 18:02, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi there!
Just got your message on my talk page. =) My perspective is quite small. I saw some vandalism on Sarah's user page.  I reverted it and dropped a warning on the vandal's talk page.  I used a non-specific warning by accident - I was extremely tired.  Hopefully, this will help! =) Srose  (talk)  18:06, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Litch
If you follow the edit history of the article they were working on and then the talk pages of the two users, the story is blindingly obvious. Litch was making edits citing a death certificate he had sourced, which was fine, except he kept making an error with a surname. Sarah Ewart quite rightly reverted this. Litch reverted back to the wrong name again and SE reverted; this happen again. At some stage she left a note on his talk page. He started accusing her of being lazy for not using the source properly, whereas of course it was he who wasn't. Then he suddenly put the correct surname in, but nevertheless decided she was lazy and abrasive, and seems to feel he has the right to declare this on her user page and/or talk page.

I stepped in to protect SE from what was obvious personal attack and harrassment, at which point Litch decided to have a go at me. I warned him about his behaviour, and, as it persisted, I blocked him, which was confirmed by two other admins. Nevertheless Litch carried on accusations that I was vindictive. His block ended and after more warning he made yet another attack, so I blocked him once more, again confirmed by another admin.

He will and/or cannot see reason and seeks to trap people with verbal trickery and protestations of outraged innocence. He has now said he will be adopting a new user name. Sarah Ewart's behaviour was exemplary under considerable provocation. There is really nothing to mediate, as she has behaved beyond reproach, and he wishes mediation so he can place a note on her user/talk page attacking her. His use of ArbCom is another example of claiming to follow process, while using it to disrupt the workings of the project. Please make whatever use you wish of my statement.

Tyrenius 18:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I was attempting to update the domino_harvey entry with accurate details of her death (the few details which were in there were incorrect) from the coroner's report posted on the smoking gun website. In doing so, I confused the name of the sobriety attendant who made the statement to the police and the attendant who was actually with her at the time of her death and posted my incorrect information with a link to the source. Later I discovered sarah_ewart had reverted the changes to an earlier inaccurate version she had edited. She did not make any attempt to correct the article or note the specific error on my talk page and instead just reverted to her version.

I updated the article again replacing the changes and extending with new information. She reverted again.

I re-read my source, discovered that I had made a mistake in who had found her and tried to correct it (but misremembered the name and changed to yet another incorrect version). She reverted again, but this time left a note asking for a source. Assuming that anyone who had read the source would update the article with the correct information rather than simply reverting to a differently inaccurate statement I decided she was simply too lazy to bother to read the entire source (it was several pages long) and childishly allowed my frustration to show in the edit description. She of course simply reverted it again.

I re-re-read the source and finally realized what she was objecting to and corrected the material. I responded on my talk page that I had corrected the information and asked her to avoid editing my entries if possible. She haughtily rejected that request and castigated me for insulting her in the edit summary by calling her lazy.

In trying to understand why she was interested in harassing me like she was, I read her talk page and noted several people she had similarly treated who came to her page to object and clarify. I decided it would be approriate for the next person she treated that way to have some forewarning that her preferred interaction style was combative and hopefully not be drawn into wasting time in a dispute with her as I had been and added a note that some editors had found her abrasive and lazy. Remembering her objection to being called lazy I went back and removed that descriptor.

Someone posting under the account user:srose castigated me on my talk page in a very similar style to user:sarah_ewart for the edit I had made to her page and I saw user:srose had reverted my changes and made a note about it on user_talk:sarah_ewart and then replied to themself thanking themselves for telling them about it "Lovely. Thanks for the heads-up. I'll have to keep an eye on it.". The only explanation for that bizarre behavior I could see was that the user:srose account was a user:sarah_ewart's sockpuppet but I attempted to respond to their statement on my talk page reasonably.

Another account user:tyrenius followed up with an accusation that I was making a personal attack and threatened to have me blocked. I believed this was another sockpuppert but attempted to respond resonably again anayways with how I saw the experience. At this time I created request for mediation in what I saw as a conflict between me and Sara Ewart & her sock puppets.

I responded to another users earlier complaint in user_talk:sarah_ewart asking if they'd been harrased in is a similar fashion for objecting to user:sarah_ewart. user:tyrenius interpretted this as continued harassment and threatened me again. I tried to point out that that wasn't what the community standards suggested was approriate and noted he was acting out of bias for a friend (or possibly a lover, since I wasn't sure what their relationship was and tried to find out). On reading his user talk:tyrenius I saw that he was a brand new admin and tried to suggest that he needed to behave in a more mature manner.

He didn't like my suggestion and blocked me. I appealed for a neutral third party, user:samir responded & removed the unblock tag but then seemed to go quiet so I placed another ublock request. user:tyrenius removed it and protected my talk page. user:samir eventually returned and unprotected the page so we could discuss the matter. I was unable to convince him I should be unblocked and so 24 hours later still not understanding what I had done wrong and feeling entirely abused I posted to wp:pain to try to understand what was happening and get some assitance.

user:tyrenius considered this another attack and blocked me for 3 days this time.

I have made a number of mistakes in this process because I was ignorant and repeatedly provoked. I had barely been at this a week before I had the misfortune of stumbling into user:sarah_ewart and her friend user:tyrenius. Rather than make an honest effort at educating and helping me they insulted me, user:tyrenius threatened me, and then repeatedly used his perogatives to harrass me. Litch 02:32, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Litch part 2
Thanks for your message. Sorry I haven't replied earlier but I haven't been online. I feel that Tyrenius's statement pretty much covers it for me, but I'd just like to respond a little further to a couple of points.

Litch states:
 * I discovered [user:sarah_ewart] had reverted the changes to an earlier inaccurate version she had edited. She did not make any attempt to correct the article or note the specific error on my talk page and instead just reverted to her version.

Firstly, it was not "my version" that I was reverting to. I had only edited that article once before and that was minutes earlier to make a minor wikifying edit to changes Litch had made. The earlier inaccurate version Litch refers to was, in fact, his own version. I only came to that page when it came up on RC and I had no strong opinion either way about it. I certainly did not have a preferred version, other than preferring it to not contain false information.

Litch complains that I reverted rather than correct the entry. The reason I did this was that I was uncertain if the edits were a simple error or vandalism. I had checked the source cited and had googled "Alexandra De Cassel," the name he was attempting to add, and it came up with zero Google hits. So I reverted the change. Litch then attempted to add a completely different name, "Peter Stone." I googled this alongside "Domino Harvey" but only got 19 hits, none of which seemed relevant. So I was clearly concerned that his editing was one of the more subtle types of vandalism we come across on RC where vandals will attempt to change names, dates etc to incorrect ones. However, I attempted to assume good faith and decided the best thing to do would be to maintain the status quo (revert to the last version before he began adding incorrect names) while I gave him the opportunity to either cite a source that supported his edits or to correct himself. I feel that I was quite reasonable in my message requesting he provide sources for the names he was trying to write into the article, the welcome template followed by:


 * "Hi, regarding the above article, could you please cite sources for the various names you are adding to the article as the people who allegedly found her dead? Thanks. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 13:30, 10 July 2006 (UTC) "

Yet Litch's response was to accuse me in his next edit summary of being "too lazy to read the citation". He then asked me to avoid editing his edits in future. I was not offended by this request (as you speculated) but merely rejected it as a ridiculously unreasonable demand since it negates the collaborative nature of Wikipedia. I do not go out of my way to edit specific people's edits, but if I find something which is false or against Wikipedia policy I will change/remove/revert it regardless of who the author is. Litch only corrected his edits of the Domino Harvey article after I informed him that the source he was citing did not support his claims, otherwise, presumably, the incorrect name "Alexandra De Cassel" would still be in the article.

I feel that Litch's request that I be required or advised to have a warning on my userpage is absurd. I do not believe I have behaved in an abrasive, harassing, provocative or inappropriate manner. I tried to deal with the matter in the nicest way possible. I reject Litch's claim that he was "repeatedly provoked," "harassed" and "insulted". However, as his edits show, he was, indeed, very insulting, provocative, harassing and abrasive towards both myself and Tyrenius.

Finally, I feel that Litch needs to be firmly elucidated about the absolute necessity for articles, particularly biographies, to be accurate. The issues that can arise from naming false people and making false claims about people can be astronomical. From the way Litch describes his edits to the Domino Harvey article, I hold genuine concerns that he is oblivious to the potential seriousness of his edits. He also needs to be cautioned about repeatedly and dismissively referring to other good faith and respected users as my "sockpuppets."

Thankyou for your efforts in this matter, CQJ, but as far as I am concerned there has never been anything to mediate. In addition, I feel that this issue has already taken up too much of our Wikipedia time and I am amazed to see that it is still being discussed 8 days later. Cheers. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 13:04, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Consensus on Spazz/Lobster Girl Debate
I agree a consensus is necessary and a good idea. However, it becomes difficult when editors with clear bias vote against solely for the sake of being able to knock the show, even if they have no idea what issue is really being discussed. I'll open the consensus now. Thanks for the mediation help in this case. Payneos 03:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

-&bull;-- --&bull;- &bull;--- !

 * Thanks for the support and the congrats! We'll have to go get coffee sometime, my growth needs more stunting. :D 73! ~Kylu ( u | t )  20:38, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

FYI
Just so you know, I now have a new username at User:Seivad. Previously I was known as User::Abcdefghijklm. This message has been left for everyone who has left a message on my talk page. Thanks for your time, Seivad 21:48, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Westminster Mediation
Just waiting for Kevin to respond to comments then hopefully this can be closed down - so please hold on for a bit longer. I notice he hasn't logged in for a while though. Roydosan 09:09, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Kevin seems happy with the Westminster page now so I think it can be closed down but check with him first. Regards, Roydosan 09:14, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Mediation Case
I see you became involved in the Metro Detroit Mediation Case. I have already stepped into the case. There is no more need for your involvment unless you come up with another compromise idea.  Viva La  V  i  e   Boheme 


 * I find it interesting how you can "already step into" something that I'd already been working on for two days in regards to Metro Detroit. In fact, I'd accepted it on the 27th (Thursday), set the category to the open tag on Thursday, commented to the requestor's page on Thursday, and had been waiting for the requestor's response since Thursday.

Since you've already started to discuss it at the case page, I'll gladly hand it off to you. However, in the future, please realize that there are Cabalists like me who don't use the case page immediately and try other methods of resolution, especially in this case, where the proposed outcome of the requestor in my view, conflicts with WP:V - the change was done in line with changes to the Census Bureau's definition of that CMSA and the requestor wants it to reflect local socioeconomic factors and local terminology.

Have a nice day, good luck with the mediation. CQJ 00:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I am sorry, but I didn't see a mediator's response.  Viva La  V  i  e   Boheme 

PT/Marcus
See, I didn't even remember that first comment on his page! If he had not removed it, his edit to my talk page would have made a lot more sense. OK, I have my filing at the Mediation Cabal on my watchlist, so I'll see when you have begun proceedings there. Thanks! PT ( s-s-s-s ) 22:12, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Mikey Teutul
Where? Like I said in my edit summary, I just looked at the website, and found nothing remotely similar to the info in the article. I went into Mikey's bio, and it had nothing there either. If you could point specifically to where the info is, it would help. Wavy G 06:23, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Check the talk page. Specifically, it's the latter part of the article, taken directly from this page. CQJ 06:25, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I see. That info was added since the last time I checked the page.  Sorry.  It is copied directly from the website, and is totally unnecessary.  I am going to remove the last part, because it adds nothing to the article.  Thanks for pointing it out, and again, I apologize for disputing you (like I said, I didn't see the new addition to the article, and it is clearly copyvio).  Wavy G 06:33, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Re: User:Wiarthurhu
Hi, sorry to bother you with this matter, but I'm looking for some advice from an administrator, and am aware that you've had brief experience with the user in question before.

User:Wiarthurhu currently has an ongoing dispute with User:Karrmann at WikiProject Automobiles over several issues; articles he created have been AfD'd, edits have been reverted, etc etc. I've tried to stay neutral, commenting only on the content as best I could.

A day or two ago, Wiarthurhu created a new page for AMC Machine, and included as the image a photo of a scale model he had. Karrmann swapped this for an image he claimed was promotional, and claimed this was better than having a photo of a model (even if the photo of the model was better quality and free). On the talk page of the article itself, I posted comments that I disagreed with Karrmann, as in my view the photo was not promotional.

My comments, including my signature, were copy/pasted to the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles page, but not in quotations, with no link, and with no signature from Wiarthurhu himself. I believe the intention was to escalate the user conflict by publicising it in a more open forum, while dragging me unwittingly into it.

Basically, I'm looking for the best avenue to proceed down in order to take action against the user. Aside from a couple of WP:3RR violations, I've never pursued formal procedures against anyone on Wikipedia before. Content disputes and petty name-calling tend, by an large, to provoke no emotional reaction from me whatsoever, but I feel this has been a very deceptive and underhanded attempt to affect people's perceptions of me as an editor.

A summary of the events, including the most helpful wikilinks, is on my talk page --DeLarge 21:58, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your kind request. Unfortunately, it's late in UTC -400 and I have to be up early for church.  I'll respond to your request tomorrow morning or afternoon.  Regards, CQJ 04:33, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Don't forget to tell them I was right on most content points, and MMx1 was just as rude and uncivil as everybody else lining up to complain against me. --matador300 07:34, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I won't even dignify that. Please stop engaging in WP:STALK, I believe you've been warned for that behavior before. As I've said previous to today, your actions are running you the very real risk of landing you in Arbitration or other forms of administrator-assisted enforcement, and I'd advise you to cease and desist immediately or face the appropriate consequences. CQJ 11:27, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Wairthu, your behavior is completely inapproiate. I am considering having a talk to Jimbo about you. Karrmann 14:58, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Color Guard
Have a look at the article now. It's been separated as discussed. I have also added a bunch of new information to it. However, it's missing some things; in particular, a historical perspective. If you have (or know where to find) any materials on that subject, please add them or let me know where/what they are. Cheers. Cacetudo 13:31, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Medcab & Prescott
Hi -- thanks for the friendly note; I really wasn't sure about the protocol of contacting you directly, though I figured you would see the note. As I hope I made clear, I was impressed with the way your approach cut through the potential silliness and made clear what was needed. Hence I felt the comment wasn't to you, as no justification was needed; I was posting mostly to understand the thought process behind your approach, and the rules and accepted approaches to mediation. I hope that's OK. Thanks for the additional explanatory comments at the MedCab talk page too. Mike Christie 16:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Wiki
I heard that you have a link to a Wiki about Wiarthurhu being faced with the abritration comittee. Could you email the link to me? Karrmann 03:30, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It's actually a development Wiki that I use for some other things as well like template tests and CSS testing. The subject is mentioned there, however. I'll touch base with you shortly. CQJ 15:52, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Your "mediation"
Hey buddy, who do you work for? The Department of Homeland Security? You closed a mediation case opened by a troll (amerindianarts) with a character assassination and never even gave Spinoza1111 07:49, 30 August 2006 (UTC) a chance to reply.Spinoza1111 07:49, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Please add your information to the bottom of my page next time, not the top. I'll have an answer for your in a few moments. CQJ 16:23, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Amateur radio
Hello. I see in the past that you have edited Amateur radio related articles. Please consider taking a look at a proposal to setup a WikiProject Amatateur radio. Thank you. --StuffOfInterest 18:28, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Suspicious IP
I have found an IP that may be Wiarthurhu. The IP is 68.220.127.176. He continually edits Bull-Doser's talk page with personal attacks similar to his when he was still around. Just thought i'd report it. Karrmann 11:27, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal request
Hello. You are either the case requestor or a named disputant in the Mediation Cabal case foobar regarding barfoo. I have reviewed the materials provided and have decided to mediate in the matter. Please go to foobar, review the section marked "Standards for Mediation" and sign your name with ~ at your earliest convenience, that way we can begin to get this article to a mutually agreeable state. Thanks for your time. CQJ 18:03, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Wiarthurhu, redux
Hi CQJ, thought I'd alert you to a new development in the case of this banned user who is now asking for a lifting of the ban under certain conditions. As you took place in the original discussion leading to the ban I thought I should contact you directly about this new discussion. Thanks, Gwernol 21:44, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

MedCab
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)
 * I edited your comment on Yakuman's talk page to give my proper username. Wikipedia's   False Prophet   holla at me   Improve Me 03:33, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Teke's RfA thanks
Thank you for your support of my RfA, which has passed with a final tally of 76/1/1. With this overwhelming show of support and approval I am honored to serve Wikipedia in the task charged to me and as outlined in my nomination. π-α-ω-ε-α embodies our undertaking here. Happy editing to you! Teke ( talk ) 17:51, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Birthdays of semifamous people
Please do not reinsert deleted birth dates of semi-famous people. As per WP:BLP, we do not mention birth dates unless they are widely known. David.Monniaux 22:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * And I have no clue what in the world you're talking about, either. Please show me a diff and I'll either apologize or tell you that you've definitely got the wrong guy. CQJ 17:39, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Archived MedCab cases and short discussion
Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-04-20 Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Westminster and other pages for Catholic diocese and bishops - closed for inactivity.

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-07-05 Wikipedia:WOT - closed - referred to CakeProphet

Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-07-05 F-14 Tomcat - closed - referred to RfC

Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-07-11 Litch-Sarah Ewart - closed - RA case

Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-07-12 Opie and Anthony Spaz/Lobster Girl Debate - closed - issue resolved itself by consenus, WP:OR, WP:V

Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-07-24 Will McBride for Senator - closed - RA case - requestor had no contributions for a week after requesting case

Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-07-17 Padua Academy - closed - No action after request.

Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-07-26 WrestleMania X8 - closed - no activity

Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-07-27 Metro Detroit - transferred, other MedCabber jumped in after I had started working on the case and pushed me out was really enthusiastic, so I gladly handed the case over...

Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-08-02 PT and Marcus22 - closed - Minor misunderstanding between editors.