Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-03-01 Cave Clan

Mediation Case: 2007-03-01 Cave Clan
Please observe Etiquette and Talk Page Etiquette in disputes. If you submit complaints or insults your edits are likely to be removed by the mediator, any other refactoring of the mediation case by anybody but the mediator is likely to be reverted. If you are not satisfied with the mediation procedure please submit your complaints to Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal.

Request Information

 * Request made by: hibou 15:31, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Where is the issue taking place?
 * Cave Clan and Talk:Cave Clan


 * Who's involved?
 * Myself and members of the Cave Clan, notably User:Dmnscar and User:DougCC. User:Raresaturn has just shown up as well. User:UrbanExplorer showed up briefly and took my side, then disappeared. There are also many contributing IPs.


 * What's going on?
 * Cave Clan members are deleting all information not 100% in their favor. I noticed this a while back and figured that the info with sources should stay.  The Cave Clan members now think that I'm someone by the name of "Panic" and have been attacking me accordingly.  I've received a death threat or two, and they've gone so far as to vandalize other pages I edit.  At the moment Cave Clan is protected for edit warring.


 * ''What would you like to change about that?
 * I'd like to see a neutral article; I'd like to not be persecuted for trying to write one.


 * Would you prefer we work discreetly? If so, how can we reach you?
 * Discretion would be appreciated. Note that you may be accused of being me, or of being "Panic". You can reach me by hitting the email link at User:Hibou8.  Or leave me a message on my talk page.

Compromise offers
This section is for listing and discussing compromise offers.



Discussion

 * Aren't Wikipedia moderators more appropriate than casual mediators once it gets to the level of death threats, online harassment, and persistent wikipedia vandalism? However, this seems like typical newbie flame war kind of stuff, where the best approach is for all parties to chill and realize how unimportant it all is.  You guys may be into your urban exploration adventures and there's a larger context for everything but the entire article looks like a piece of self-promotion by a tiny activity club.  The citations are all the same source, which is not authoritative.  Is there anything about Cave Clan that makes it suitable for a reference article of general interest?  Has it ever been covered in mainstream press?  Is it related to other major social movements?  If so, why not edit the article to highlight that and not what the safety or tunnel vandalism record happens to be (which may be important to the cops but not really to the readers).  Otherwise it is probably non-notable and subject to deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikidemo (talk • contribs)


 * Well that's rather patronizing. All edit wars are inconsequential in the grand scheme of things, we all know this -- but if you think it's all so silly what are you doing with the Mediation Cabal? I thought this is where people are supposed to resolve these kinds of disputes.


 * If you'd check Talk:Cave Clan you'll see that deletion was proposed a few times, and you'll see why the decision was negative. As for the citations, many are hosted on the same website, but they are not all the same.  One is the scan of an article, and the rest are scans from the old Cave Clan zine Il Draino.


 * All critiques are accepted, but it would be more helpful if you could deal with the argument as it stands now, rather than rehashing the article's notability, etc. Thanks -- hibou 21:31, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not a member of the mediation cabal or I might have taken the case. If you want to resolve it you might want to start by acknowledging that the dispute is inconsequential in scope and not worth personal animosity, death threats, etc.  Some people clearly do, others are being hotheads.  I think I left notability in the form of a question.  Perhaps the subject is notable but the deletion discussion revealed that the article does not contain enough references to establish why it is, and recommended some further citations.  That hasn't happened yet, so there's no context for this non-Australian short of reading through the talk page.  If that all sounds patronizing, so it is.  It's good that it's in mediation.  Why not move the criticisms to a separate criticisms section and make clear that "some people" question this or that.  If you're doing an edgy countercultural activity, no matter how wholesome it is you are going to have detractors.  But the other side is that wikipedia is for articles about things, not for arguments justifying why they are good or not good.  So to be balanced, any criticism has to be off to the side and much shorter in proportion to the main article, also acknowledge that there is criticism rather than coming down on one side of the dispute.  I won't hang around here, it's not really my issue, just trying to help.  Wikidemo 02:54, 3 March 2007 (UTC)