Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-06-15 Eastside High School (Gainesville, Florida)

Who are the involved parties?
Thereisaplace, Catbag, TheRaven, Fram, DaDrought3 (writer of "Fram" section on discussion page), and possibly other parties.

What is the involved article(s)?
Vandalism, false accusation of 'meatpuppetry' by administrator (Fram), unnecessary locking by administrator (Fram).

What's going on?
People such as the administrator who have no knowledge of the article topic are attempting subversion to destroy the integrity of the article. These actions include locking the page from editing, editing the content itself to display incorrect information or to remove factual information, and general vandalism. This behavior was also present in the editing of the Gotem article, in which Fram attempted (and failed) to subvert another article by direct deletion and manipulation instead of going through the appropriate dispute channels. When the article's creators (as is the case with this article) went through the proper channels, overwhelming evidence and wikipedia public opinion supported the creators and NOT Fram.

Upon researching the history of these characters and related articles, it is evident that Fram has engaged in a personal vendetta against certain users associated with this article, after having intervened in the past (these administrative interventions were overruled by other administrators as well as a large contingent of other Wikipedians... for a rather silly but factual history of these events, see this page.

What would you like to change about that?
The main issue here is the abuse of power, and it has been suggested that Fram be subject to discipline such as removal of his administrative powers.

Of course, unlocking the page for proper editing is also needed.

Mediator response
I'm not the mediator, but I'm still making a comment here. I highly suggest that this issue be forwarded to WP:ANI this doesn't seem like the appropriate place. Also, have you tried talking to Fram? No discussion, no MedCab. I also think that you're over-reacting, there's not going to be any administrative dismissal here.  Cool Blue  talk to me 21:24, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * There's no vandalism here. Please forward this issue to WP:ANI. You're more likely to get consensus there.  Cool Blue  talk to me 21:29, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Since there is no vandalism, then there should be no lock on the article, thus Fram has again abused administrative power.128.227.16.179 21:35, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Though I do not believe it will be addressed in a timely manner, I have nevertheless forwarded this issue to WP:ANI. Thanks for your input CoolBlue. --DaDrought3 22:03, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You're more likely to get the best responses at ANI.  Cool Blue  talk to me 01:46, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * No luck, the ANI people think it's a joke or something without going through the facts first. I'm will keep trying though. Furthermore, I think this article needs some REAL admins (objective outside observers) since Fram's objectivity is in question. That way it can be protected from vandalism while keeping Fram from incessantly breathing down people's necks and draining away productivity. --DaDrought3 04:54, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I am willing to act a mediator on this case. I did make one edit to the page today, but have no other interest in the article or knowledge of the participants. Comments pro or con are requested of the interested parties. --Robbie Giles 17:22, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your offer, but I'm not interested in mediation with these people. The block of Catbag has been checked (and extended to indefinite) by two independent administrators, the article is only semi-protected, and the accusations by the IP who has now become a single purpose account are not worthy of more of our time. Ignore the trolls please. Fram 20:25, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * This is an example of ignoring the standard channels of conflict resolution and abusing your powers by single-handedly taking control of the situation. Wikipedia is supposed to be a democratic process, if you don't want to be part of this process, leave this article alone and let the real moderators deal with it. By the way, no one is going to ignore your supposed 'troll' because you say so. --DaDrought3 17:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I am not a mediator, but I will say this. Fram, please assume good faith. Calling them trolls for what looks like a simple miscommunication or misunderstanding is obviously forgetting that policy. Also, both Fram and DaDrought3, please be careful of the personal attack policy, as you are both bordering on infringing that as well. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 21:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * An editor whose first edits are to attack me and defend two long term vandals, one of them indef blocked for vandalism and sockpuppetry? I don't assume good faith in the face of the blindingly obvious. Can I just say that he hasn't shown which edits of me are supposed to be "vandalism", that the blocking has been endorsed by different editors, and that the meatpuppetry is quite clear, as the editor involved supported repeatedly (over the years even) the indef blocked sockpuppeteer? All his points are nonsense, and a waste of time. You can do with it whatever you want, but I'm done with it. Fram 05:11, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that Fram, the main subject of the reason of mediation, doesn't agree to the mediation case. There's really not much mediation that can be done if one of the parties is not present in the mediation, so I'll close. If anyone objects reasonably, they are welcomed to reopen the case. Sr13 08:27, 20 June 2007 (UTC)