Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-01-05 Cayra

Who are the involved parties?

 * alias "wikiwatcher9999"; IPs and

What's going on?
The article is being flagged and threatened for removal. The editors doing the threatening are not engaging in discussion of attempting to justify their actions. I have made repeated efforts to discuss the issues and been met only with avoidance and finally, procedural maneuvers. Over and over and over again I have asked for specifics and arguments as to why actions were taken or statements made. This is what is secondarily frustrating; an example:

wikieditor9999 said: Ronz, per wikipedia's policy, escalation is a last resort. THe preferred emthod is for two editors to engage each other. You have a specific claim- that this article violated WP:N. If that is true, then defend that claim. How does this article violate WP:N? Ronz replied: I'm going to escalate it if you don't first. --Ronz (talk) 20:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Primarily, the issue is that the flagging is officious, inappropriate, and destructive.

Moreover, there have been attempts to impose a self-created "list" of criteria the references must meet to count as valid references which represents an attempt at an out-of-process, localized  establishment of new Wiki policy. The flags cited are variously, flatly false or a mindless misapplication of the rules. I detail exactly why this in my entries of the talk section. wikiwatcher9999 (talk) 15:22, 5 January 2008 (UTC)wikieditor9999

What would you like to change about that?
I would like to see the page be left alone until such time as a substantive violation of wiki policies is cited. I would like to see the page frozen without the flags if need be. wikiwatcher9999 (talk) 15:22, 5 January 2008 (UTC)wikieditor9999

Mediator notes
Dear Wikiwatcher9999: I'm Nicholas Turnbull, your mediator at the Mediation Cabal. I'm currently looking into the issue and will talk to you very soon about it, once I've worked out what is going on. I should say from the outset that the Mediation Cabal cannot intervene in article deletion requests, but still, I will look into the issue and report back to you with my initial findings. Thanks a lot, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 01:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I have requested protection for the article while it's the subject of any mediation or arbitration procedures. I will wait to hear back from you on my talk page. wikiwatcher9999 (talk) 04:24, 7 January 2008 (UTC)wikiwatcher9999

Administrative notes
Unless anyone objects, I'll close this case. Addhoc (talk) 00:48, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Discussion
My entries on the talk page tell the story. I make my case there. The writing is cogent, on topic and to the point. Chronologically, they reveal my attempts and pleadings for editors to engage in talk and not war. They also reveal the attempt on one editor's part to hold this article's references to a self created standard.

I carefully and with great sincerity and effort make my case that the flagging here is inappropriate and in fact direct contradiction to the essential purpose and spirit of Wikipedia.

I should also say, as I say in the talk section, that I am not in any way whatsoever connected to the software the page is about either as a user, producer, reviewer, paid consultant or any other conceivable way. wikiwatcher9999 (talk) 15:22, 5 January 2008 (UTC)wikieditor9999


 * Note: This is a standard AfD. Let it go through the process and please apply more good faith upon other editors, especially . To note, article talk pages are not places to vent about a particular user, per WP:SOAP, and your talk page isn't all that much better.  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 20:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)