Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-08-19 White people

Request details
Protracted edit war going on at the page, with some editors pushing their personal POV above documented sources on the subject. This tends to spin non-mainstream POV as being mainstream, thus misrepresenting facts. Multiple comments of OR have also been made on both sides. The aim of this mediation is to achieve NPOV treatment of the subject in the article.

Who are the involved parties?
One side:
 * User:Ramdrake
 * User:Muntuwandi
 * User:Jeeny

Other side:
 * User:Phral (has been indef. blocked for sockpuppetry )
 * User:Fourdee (indef blocked}
 * User:KarenAER (indef blocked)

Lesser involved, simply commenting editors and/or more neutral editors:
 * User:Kevin Murray
 * User:The Behnam
 * Alun
 * User:Slrubenstein
 * User:Sambc

What's going on?
Ramdrake's Version: This article is caught in a tug-of-war between two polarized positions. A mediator is required to help us achieve NPOV treatment. If possible, we would need a mediator who's especially familiar with NPOV and OR issues, and who can help parties remain civil.

What would you like to change about that?
Achieve NPOV treatment of the article.

Mediator notes
I am checking in with participants; there seems to be enough people to facilitate discussion, thus, the discussion is being moved to the talk page. Ne ra n e i  (talk) 01:34, 20 August 2007 (UTC) The age part was an example...If the involved editors do not want Neranei as mediator, will the involved editors accept me as mediator? nattang 12:20, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, this mediator does not have the time at Wp or the experience to deal with this complicated topic. This is a waste of time.  This needs to go to formal mediation. --Kevin Murray 04:05, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with you Kevin, but don't want formal mediation --Phral 09:34, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh God yes, I didn't even notice this is a brand new editor who offered to do the mediation? How does that even happen?  What nonsense.  This should just be deleted immediately as some kind of game-playing.  This is a highly controversial article and needs the input of someone very experienced with rules and precedents on wikipedia.  -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 09:41, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I disagree, I suggest that you allow this editor to be the mediator for this case, give Neranei a chance to help the involved editors to find a compromise. One advice people often give is, don't judge a book by its cover. In this case, don't judge an editor based on age or how long an editor's been registered or how long he/she has been an active editor. Instead, Judge the editor based on the quality of his/her contributions. nattang 11:26, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Who said anything about his/her age? This editor has been substantilly active for two months at WP.  We all need to start somewhere, but not as mediators for sensitive issues.  Yes, give the new editors a chance, but let's be practical too. --Kevin Murray 12:04, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Who are you and why are you involved in this discussion. You also have very little experience at WP, with your actual editing commencing in May 2007 []  Your kind words are soothing, but not practicle to accomplishing our objective.  --Kevin Murray 12:23, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I got involved in this discussion through WP:AN/I when someone decided to bring the heated and distruptive discussion to the AN/I. nattang 12:41, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Are you an admin? --Kevin Murray 13:05, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Nope, but you don't have to be a sysop to be involved on the noticeboard. nattang 13:16, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * A user doesn't have to be an admin or experienced in order to make useful contributions, especially when the solution being aimed at is calm agreement (or compromise) between the parties. Some of us have experience beyond wikipedia which is very useful in various on-wikipedia situations. This can't be proved, but WP:AGF would suggest giving people the benefit of the doubt and judging people on their actions in a given case or related cases, not by their time editing with a given account. SamBC(talk) 13:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree, but I didn't see any comment by Nat at the noticeboard so his comment regarding involvement seemed out of place; thus I wondered what his involvement is. So we have established that Nat is an observer, not a participant, not an admin, and assumed to be disinterested.  Regardless, I don't see sufficiant experience to mediate this case.  Sorry.  --Kevin Murray 13:41, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

If there is consensus to not have me as a mediator, I will gladly step down and have someone else handle the case. Ne ra n e i  (talk) 14:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The reopening of the case should allow another mediator to work along side Neranei. Addhoc 18:22, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree. She is going to need help. I don't care if she were 55-years-old and had a PhD in psychology. This is very sensitive article, with hostile overtones. Since it is her first one, she definitely needs help, because of the nature of the dispute. It is very important that the mediators are familiar with NPOV, OR, and whatever other policies needed for this issue. Also, someone who is detached from the subject too. I think we should give Neranei a chance, but one or two others with more experience should help her. - Jeeny Talk 20:29, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Just a comment Edits aren't really an indication of how good you are at mediating and neither is age. I might work along side Neranei on this case if I get a reply forget it, case is already in it's advanced stages--Pheonix15 22:59, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Administrative notes
Discussion previously found here has been moved to the talk page of the article. Please discuss there. Ne ra n e i  (talk) 01:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I will be mediating in this dispute as well; hopefully there won't be any problems.  Singu larity  23:28, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I accept this mediation team. --Kevin Murray 23:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I accept. - Jeeny Talk 23:58, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Mediation team accepted.--Ramdrake 00:00, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Fine by me. SamBC(talk) 03:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * KarenAER 05:38, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * ditto Slrubenstein  |  Talk 16:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks good. The Behnam 19:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I never had a problem with any mediator. Alun 05:45, 22 August 2007 (UTC)