User talk:Fasten/Archive 2

IPTV
Thank you for putting the spam tag on the IPTV page. Hopefully that will help the situation. For some reason, that topic is attracting tons of commercial attention, with lots of vendors putting up company links etc. Andrwsc 17:41, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but I think the IBS thing is beyond my capabilities. Regionalsimp

Meditation
Ok, I updated my answer. --Khoikhoi 15:31, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Status change on the irritable bowel syndrome
Thank you for working with the Mediation Cabal. There was a request for mediation on the Irritable Bowel Syndrome article. It was put up by Cameronian, assigned to another, and now is listed as withdrawn. Do you know who put in the request to withdraw the mediation request on that article? Kd4ttc 03:27, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Mediation
Can you outline how your mediation for Talk:Persian people is going to work? As of right now most of my concerns ragarding the factualy accuracy of the article have been ignored. AucamanTalk 07:40, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

What kind of mediation is this?!
I see that Rohirok was assigned to mediate the Natasha Demkina case. And I also just saw that he posted this note to one guy who wants to include references that I have been arguing violate Wiki guidelines regarding reputable sources.


 * "I've been assigned the Demkina mediation case. I will do my best to work toward a NPOV in the article, and I agree that the article ought to include a description of Nobel Laureate Professor Brian Josephson's problems with the CSICOP researchers' scientific methodology. I must disclose that I am skeptical of the paranormal, a former subscriber to Skeptical Inquirer, and a former intern at CSICOP's international headquarters, though I have never met Skolnick. That said, I don't think the article should at all push CSICOP's agenda. A reader of the article should not get the impression that the article itself is making a case for or against Demkina's purported paranormal abilities.


 * I can assign another mediator to the case, if you wish. Rohirok 03:47, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

What kind of mediator starts off mediation by writing one side of the dispute saying that he agrees with them? Rohirok did not write me with the same offer; I would take it. That's why I'm writing you. I want a different mediator assigned -- not one that comes to the mediation table already agreeing with one side.

Rohirok appears to have the same point of view as Dreadlocke and his supporters, that the Natasha Demkina article should give equal weight to the views of Natasha's supporters, even if it means citing non-reputable sources, such as the personal web sites of kooks who have never published anything related to the field in peer-reviewed science journals. I would like a mediator who comes to the table respecting Wiki editing guidelines and policies. Thank you. Askolnick 05:16, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

If I may add another point: I only found out a couple hours ago that Rohirok was assigned to be mediator. He's never informed me, either privately or on the Natsha Demkina Discussion page. But as you can see from his and Dreadlocke's personal Talk pages, they have been exchanging greetings and complements now for several days. Is this the kind of mediation that is practiced in Wikipedia? I think this is outrageous.

And please take a look at what Rohirok has already argued on the Natasha Demkina talk page. He entered the discussion in support of using non-reputable personal web sites (without identifying himself as having been assigned to be mediator!): "It is fine to reference sources that are considered disreputable if they document the fact that certain claims are being made," he wrote. That is exactly the claim that I am disputing and he comes into the forum and starts off with his verdict. Only, I didn't have a clue that it was a verdict. I had no idea he was the assigned moderator. So now that he's issued his verdict, when does the trial start? I'm feeling like Alice in Wikiland.

I don't think Rohirok should ever again be assigned to moderate any dispute between editors. Askolnick 05:16, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Hello Fasten. This is my first mediation case. I am still learning, and believe that I will make a good mediator. As suggested, I will read closely the suggestions for moderators. If the Cabal finds that they would like to assign another mediator to this particular case, I will accept that decision gladly. However, I hope that you would consider me for other cases. Rohirok 16:21, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


 * It's mediator, not moderator. The Mediation Cabal doesn't (formally) exist so there is nobody with the authority to assign another mediator, except, maybe, the coordinator. Your clients may, of course, decide that they want another mediator. In that case you can assign somebody else yourself. --Fast e n talk 17:47, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

This was my mediation request, and I think Rohirok will make a fine mediator; he described both sides of his views to me - that he had been previously involved with CSICOP and yet saw the fairness of including Professor Josephson's website. Inclusion of that website is agreed upon by everyone except for Mr. Skolnick who has a distinct and unique perspective due to the fact that he is one of the key contributors to the very same CSICOP articles and investigations that are being critiqued by the very website he disputes inclusion of. At this point, I do not believe Mr. Skolnick is arguing in good faith nor has any intention of coming to a consensus with the other disputants, so I think this will end up in the hands of the Mediation and Arbitration committees. The Mediation Cabal was the first step in that direction. Dreadlocke 19:24, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Of course you think Rohirok will make a fine mediator. We can see that from the communications you two had days before he let anyone else know that he was assigned to be mediator. And we can see how he assured you not to worry, that he was on your side. Of course you think Rohirok will make a fine mediator. Fasten just got done pointing out the many errors Rohirok made in his attempt to edit the article instead of mediating. As you always do, you simply ignore contrary facts in pursuit of your personal agenda. And once again, you resort to a bald faced lie. The citation of Brian Josephson's disreputable, self-published personal web page is NOT agreed upon by everyone else. You know damn well that some editors agree with me. But as you always do, you simply ignore contrary evidence in pursuit of your personal agenda. Here's a comment from one editor: "As a mainly uninvolved observer, it looks to me like Mr. Skolnick is leading a 1 man defense against whitewashing, POV edits, and use of unreliable sources. JoshuaZ 22:21, 3 March 2006 (UTC)" As long as you keep posting such lies, Dreadlocke, I am going to keep exposing them for what they are. Askolnick 18:25, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I accept your evaluation, Fasten. I have approached this mediation incorrectly. I will chalk this one up as a learning experience. Often, you learn most when you fail. I ask that another person be assigned as mediator. I believe that someone without a relationship to the skeptical or paranormal fields will be best for this, though a scientific background will be a great help. Someone with a very thick skin is also necessary. This is a tough case, with a quite extensive discussion history and well-entrenched sides. Rohirok 22:16, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


 * A mediator does not need a thick skin if he or she actually mediates instead of pursuing his or her own agenda -- as you did, Rohirok. You tried to use your position as mediator to edit the article to suit your own personal views. Anyone who tries that again is going to need a really thick skin. Hopefully the next mediator to take this on won't need a thick skin. But since you're choosing the next mediator, I'm not optimistic. You didn't act with fairness as a mediator, I doubt you will be fair in choosing a replacement. Askolnick 18:17, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi
Hi, you placed the 'helpme' template on a page, what kind of help do you need? The template is actually meant for user talk pages, which is why I'm replying here, I hope you don't mind! --Joann e B 12:32, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


 * We have users that need help and these are frequently unexperienced users in need of help so the clientele is exactly what helpme is meant for. The difference is that the help required is informal mediation. --Fasten 12:36, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Fasten! As explained at the Newcomers help page, the instructions for using helpme are: "Place helpme on your talkpage and help will visit you ASAP!".


 * When you do use it, we are notified in an IRC channel, then we visit the person who needs help (and the page is added to category that people check). This is quite different from what you want to achieve at Mediation cabal. If you like, you can join us online and see for yourself, we would love to meet you. You can just click here. --Commander Keane 12:45, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Persian people
Hello there,

First of all thank you for trying to sort things out, I appreciate it very much.

I would like to assume good faith, however you were quick to find the link ('evidence' to my personal attack) but everything else you posted, you only put 'accusation' and asked US to provide evidence which have been constantly posted in the last week.

Why is this? could you not bother to put the hundreds of incidents reported in there (Mediation page)? I suggest you start reading up on them, because we are waaay tooo busy defending the articles. See Requests for comment/Aucaman and Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents for a few.

I also suggest read up on Iranian Wikipedians' notice board and especially here

Thanks again for your help, --Kash 23:11, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Aucaman tried to remove all your contribution to 'archive', but I reverted it --Kash 11:35, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Requested update
I have been asked by the requesters of the Persian people mediation to advocate for them. I have one question for you. That question is simply: Is it correct that cabal mediation was requested, and that Aucaman declined to participate by deleting the talk page request for mediation?

I am not ready to request arbitration unless mediation has failed. Robert McClenon 12:48, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Please see also my comment on User_talk:NicholasTurnbull.


 * The claim that Aucaman has moved the mediation case to the archive is apparently correct. He did this, however, with a general refactoring of the talk page and not specifically to remove the mediation case. He has also did not make any comments that were plainly rejecting the mediation case. --Fast e n talk/med 13:01, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Words of guidance to Cameronian
Thank you for giving words of guidance to Cameronian on his involvement in mediating on Irritable Bowel Syndrome. Kd4ttc 23:15, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Just to explain why I have decided to leave Wikipedia.
 * It was down to User:Kd4ttc.
 * I did not believe that you had any right what so ever to tell me that my advocacy on the IBS article was poor. The case had barely started when Kd4ttc started making my life hell, complaining about one word errors such as when I had said I was a member of the mediation committee when I actually meant the advocacy committee (OK, there is a difference, but this does not invalidate my comments - that I had merely said that I would back Sarastro, I had not or claimed to have made any "official" decision, which clearly is what an advocate is supposed to do. I advised Sarastro to recreate her edits as the 3RR rule had been broken). Then the user made some accusations towards me such as that I was a sock puppet. I feel it is a shame that the actions I was taking to help this site have been interpreted in another way.
 * If you have anything to say, please post it on my old talk page.

Cameronian 19:26, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Talk Page Etiquette
User_talk:Rohirok

Incomplete RfM
I was trying to request mediation for the Persian people case. Please disregard the request, since it is already in mediation. Robert McClenon 12:41, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Persian people
What do you have to say/do about all these people removing the dispute tag? AucamanTalk 00:17, 11 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The article had the dispute tag for weeks if I remember correctly, and mainly because of user Aucaman, I think its a bit unfair as so much hard work has gone in to it and only one user is really challenging the whole thing. --Kash 00:33, 11 March 2006 (UTC)


 * As you can see I cannot even have a private discussion with another user without having someone comment on it. It is somehow "unfair" of me to even complain about the fact that there is a dispute in place but people are taking off the dispute tag without any discussion or comments in the talk page. AucamanTalk 00:45, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Computer science
Hi, and welcome to WikiProject Computer science! Hopefully you'll find it both a worthwhile place to contribute your expertise, and a good place to learn from the expertise of other project members. Looking forward to collaborating with you in the future. --Allan McInnes (talk) 21:03, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

U.S. Roads
I'm not willing to mediate in other cases due to the scale of the problem we're facing at U.S. Roads. Also, it would be helpful if someone was assigned soon because the problem only grows each day. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  20:37, 12 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Not accepting a mediation case and asking for a quick assignment are in opposition: The more people submit cases without accepting cases the slower the service will get. Your waiting position is currently 7 and it would be 3 if you would offer mediation. --Fasten 11:48, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Tyrone Power Mediation
Sorry if there was any confusion regarding the mediation - I fully understood that the cabal was an informal process, with no power, it was User:Rossrs who made the statement "I am outraged that editors have made substantial edits to the article under discussion before the mediation process has been completed", not me. --JereKrischel 16:41, 13 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, I seem to have misread that. --Fasten 17:32, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Mediation Case: Joe Scarborough
Hello. I have declined to mediate in this case due to a lack of enough background information. Please assign this case to another mediator, as I don't know the proccedure to do it. By the same token, and to be fair, please delete my request for Mediation on the History of the Ecuadorian-Peruvian territorial dispute article, or indicate me the procedure I should follow to delete the request. Thank you. talk:Andres C.


 * I will take care of both. --Fasten 15:25, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Mediation Case: Chinook Wind
Thank you for mediating the Chinook Wind case to a resolution that, hopefully, satisfied all involved. Also, I accepted the mediation of a dispute involving the New Zealand article. Unfortunately, my initial attempts have not been met with any response, and my experience with the Chinook Wind article has soured me on the informal mediation process. Is it possible to have it assigned to another user? Elpoca 19:56, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, you can do that yourself. Please follow the guidelines on the WP:MEDCAB page. You can also step down without assigning a new mediator and write "needs new mediator" next to the article in the list of cases.

Mediation case: Persian people
Hi Fasten, you may have noticed I made a compromise suggestion for a wording at Persian people yesterday. My intention was for it to be step in the direction of your mediating suggestions, but apparently ManiF and Zmmz found it counterproductive, for reasons I can't quite understand. I hope I haven't been detrimental to your mediation efforts in doing that. Lukas (T. 09:34, 16 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think so. Any help is welcome. --Fasten 12:41, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

transparency
Talk:Transparency sorry, just back from holiday, mediation is still wanted. could you have a look ? Thanks Mion 14:30, 18 March 2006 (UTC) Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-02-14 Transparent - unsupported reverts by Mion Mion 14:32, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes gr. Mion 16:33, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

yes, a revert on transparent (transparency is fine), and links to the other page on each page. Transparent Mion 00:59, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Why das it need a new mediator ? Gr. Mion 22:57, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi
You are an admin, please if you have time have a look at this Iranian users who for no good reason are putting totallydisputed tag on the Kurdish new year Newroz. Thank you  D iyako Talk + 16:22, 19 March 2006 (UTC).


 * No, I'm not. --Fasten 16:23, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Reply Proposal
Replies to Village_pump_%28proposals%29/Archive.

Joe Scarborough Mediation
Regarding the case you asked me to take on on behalf of the Mediation Cabal, so far, only the person who requested mediation has indicated interest in the process. I've invited others to participate on their user talk pages and in the article talk page. One has explicitly declined and the rest have simply not participated. What should be my next step? I'm thinking maybe closing it, and telling the requester why with a suggestion of other options, such as requesting page protection. (I'm happy to take on more cases, btw). Fishhead64 20:50, 21 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd recommend that you try to explain to the rejecting disputants(s) that informal mediation is a benevolent offer and rejecting mediation can lead to arbitration. Since this case wasn't explained in the Suggestions_for_mediators I added a new point (17):


 * If your mediation attempt is rejected by some disputants you can try to mediate between the people willing to participate, if that is possible. In case of misconduct you can also place the appropriate warnings on a user's talk page, reminding him or her to be civil. You can also recommend other methods of dispute resolution that appear sensible to solve the given conflict. If a disputant states in advance that he or she will also reject formal mediation by the Mediation_Committee you can advise that this behaviour may lead to arbitration. Especially if the disputant is convinced to be right he or she should try not to bother the Arbitration Committee with a trivial case and explain his or her position to the mediator instead. Other methods of dispute resolution include WP:3O, WP:RFC and WP:CS.


 * You can accept cases at any time. Help yourself. --Fasten 14:26, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

mediation wanted?
Moo. Would it be appropriate for me to mediate Opie and Anthony?

I know nothing about Opie and Anthony, the station, or for that matter about anything on satellite radio, which (IMO) give me the "unbiased" advantage. :) -- Fullstop 14:29, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

ps: response here is preferred.


 * Sure it's appropriate - as long as you don't pick a case where you are directly involved or partisan by choice. --Fasten 14:38, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

No, don't know the parties involved, or anything about the subject. But thats why I asked: is not knowing anything about the subject a good position to mediate from? I would think that would be beneficial, but wanted to check first. -- Fullstop 14:44, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


 * That depends on the kind of mediation required. Sometimes what people actually need is a third opinion by an expert. In such a case you can tell them about WP:3O and close the case. In a real mediation case the dispute may require you to learn some of the matter at hand to understand the different positions but the mediator doesn't have to be an expert him - or herself. If the mediation case requires too much expert knowledge you can put an expert required notice next to your case. In general lacking expertise is no advantage, of course. --Fasten 14:59, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I've taken the case. From what I've read, I don't see either one being particulary relevant in an encyclical context (as in "WP is not a fansite"). As a first step, I've asked the parties what merit (to WP) their points-of-view have. -- Fullstop 15:28, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Requests for comment/Aucaman, Diyako, Heja helweda, Muhamed
You may want to comment on it. -- Cool CatTalk 13:51, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

dispute resolution process
Responses to User_talk:Avidor


 * Sorry about the accidental vandalism on the Mediation Cabal main page. I replied to his message quickly without checking where I was. A Transportation Enthusiast 11:37, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

--

FYI about "Transportation Enthusiast"... he was banned from the Seattle P.I. web board and his comments erased.



This is why he was banned

Why is Wikipedia allowing T.E., "Mr. Grant" and others to use Wikipedia describe me as mentally ill etc.?

It's ironic that T.E. and his anonymous accomplices have had me blocked and my comments removed from the PRT Talk page.

Even more ironic is that I am mentioned by name in the Wikipedia PRT article itself.

What kind of "encyclopedia" alows  anonymous character assasination while preventing the accused from defending himself?

It's also important to note that Leroy Demery's (a transportation consultant using his own name) comments were also removed from the talk page.

It is also important to note that this article is likely being used to influence legislators in Minnesota to vote in favor of PRT bills in the current session. In the past, PRT companies have sold stock to investors. Wiikipedia should be very concerned about misinformation that may influence public officials and investors.

Avidor 15:56, 24 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I guess what you are looking for is Libel:
 * If you believe that you are the subject of a libellous statement on Wikipedia, ...
 * --Fasten 16:07, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry
I'm not quite sure how the whole mediation thing works, but I'd love to mediate in any case I'm needed in. I've got the time and the patience, so just tell me how I ought to go about this. Thanks! --Keitei (talk) 16:42, 24 March 2006 (UTC)


 * See User_talk:Fasten --Fasten 17:52, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Process of Notice of Dispute(s)
Thanks very mmuch for the heads-up on my page. Isn't formal notice the normal expectation for parties to a dispute? I had no idea; who on earth decides these things around here? Kenosis 16:45, 24 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Formal notice for informal mediation? No. Somebody filed a mediation case and mentioned your name. If you weren't aware of it the mediation probably hasn't yet begun. --Fasten 17:27, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks again Fasten...Kenosis 17:28, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Mediation:Help
I expect some help for mediation. I have gone through all links. Should I need to contact the users on their talk pages to get involved them or should I start working on the mediation cabal cases page. From where should I start? I am very new to mediate. I haven't handled any case so far, please suggest how do I start? Thanks, Shyam  ( T / C ) 17:16, 24 March 2006 (UTC)


 * First you should verify if the submitter has requested privacy. If this is the case you should probably send an email. If not you can verify the situation. How many disputants are there? How noisy are they? Do they prefer the talk page or have they already begun to discuss on the mediation page? If the talk page is too noisy but the disputants tend to use the talk page and ignore the mediation page you can invite them with or  to use
 * Make sure to read and understand "Suggestions for mediators".
 * You should also analyze the situation. Is the dispute trivial or non-trivial? In a trivial dispute one side is in obvious violaton of official policy with their central demands. In this case it may be an error to try to make the other side change their position and aim for a compromise.
 * In a non-trivial dispute you can try to make the disputants agree on the need for mediation as a first step and build from their. What can the disputants agree on besides the need for mediation?
 * If the case requires expert knowledge you don't have it may also be a good idea to ask for outside assistance. --Fasten 17:49, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Hey Fasten...
You contacted me and told me I should be a mediator, while I have no problems doing that, I'd rather you assign me a case. If you need me as a mediatior, just drop the request for mediation link on my talk page. Thanks -- Dragoonmac - If there was a problem yo I'll solve it 21:01, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Mediation for Roman Catholic Church
Fasten, I've already done RFC. I don't know what else to do anymore. I am confident that if there were some neutral panel of Wikipedians well-versed in the policies like WP:NC and Naming conflict, my arguments would carry the day. Unfortunately, this is turning out to be a nightmare because everybody has an axe to grind. And there's nobody to appeal to! If this is how Wikipedia is, I don't know if I want to stick around. --Hyphen5 01:08, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Mediation questions
Hello, two questions. I'm currently mediating at Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-03-12_Clay_Aiken_page_dispute_regarding_the_John_Paulus_allegations and since it's my first mediation I would be interested in your thoughts as to whether I'm acting approrpiately thus far. Also, I would be interested in mediating the dispute via Israel. do I just put my name down or do I need to be assigned? Thanks! Tufflaw 03:28, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

RE:Mediation "Invitation"
Hi Fasten: Thank you for contacting me. See my response at User talk:IZAK. Thank you. IZAK 06:22, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi again Fasten: Thank you for your reply on my talk page. See my next response there. Thanks. IZAK 04:02, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Medation: Natasha Demkina Article
In this mediation case it appears I have not been very successful. To be honest, part of the blame lies on me for making a few mistakes at this first attempt of mine to work as a mediator here, but I have also encountered a rather bitter and uncooperative party (namely Askolnick with his personal attacks and little smear campaign against me). I do not believe I can succeed here, so I feel I must bow out. You can see my concluding remarks here. If you wish, I am free to try again at this Mediation Cabal thing. --Wade A. Tisthammer 20:38, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Mediation: Radio Maryja Article
I believe we will need mediation on this page again very soon as a certain user is back.--Milicz 22:07, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I've reactivated the mediation case. Let me know when you need my help. --Fasten 19:28, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Minor edits
Hi. Just a note: this is not a minor edit, and should not be marked as that. I would suggest you uncheck the minor edit and use edit summaries for major edits, so that it is clear to others what you are up to. I wonder what you think; you can reply here, thanks. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 20:00, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Exactly what I thought after I had hit the Save Page button. I posted the motivation for my change on the talk page before the change but nobody seemed interested to discuss the topic. "rv" would probably have been the correct edit summary. --Fasten 20:09, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks. :) But I noticed your posts to user talk pages are also marked minor edits, and in general, the use of edit summaries is kind of sparce. So I am bugging you, that's for sure, but I'd say a bit more work on those edit summaries won't hurt. :) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 20:59, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Persians people
You wouldn't believe it, but..well. How can I put it? The 'problem' still exists: Talk:Persian_people  - K a s h  Talk 18:58, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Do you require assistance? --Fasten 19:32, 13 April 2006 (UTC)