Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2011-01-26/WT:WikiProject United States

Where is the dispute?
The dispute is on WT:WikiProject United States and an RFC based on that page concerning the scope of WikiProject United States (WPUS) and its relationship to other WikiProjects.

The problem is evidenced by the welcome paragraph and scope paragraph in the left column of WP:WikiProject United States, the tagging (at robot-like speeds) of the talk pages of thousands of US-related articles with a banner placing them within the scope of WPUS. The sending of "invitations" to 2,400 talk pages of U.S. Wikipedians, and the repeated spaming of 211 US-related WikiProject talk pages with promotions for WPUS. This has already been discussed at ANI and BRFA. Some people believe that only card-carrying official members of WPUS may participate or "vote" in the discussions or RFC. A members of state-level and topic-specific WikiProjects have questioned why the scope of the project is being expanded and why they are being "spammed" with repeated unsolicited promotional messages from WPUS.

Who is involved?
Just a list of the users involved. (From the history page of WT:WPUS):
 * User:Casliber
 * User:Djsasso
 * User:DocOfSoc
 * User:Doncram
 * User:Floydian
 * User:Gigs
 * User:Hholt01
 * User:Hjal
 * User:Imzadi1979
 * User:Jason Quinn
 * User:JonRidinger
 * User:Kumioko
 * User:Markvs88
 * User:Moxy
 * User:Mudwater
 * User:North Shoreman
 * User:Orlady
 * User:Otr500
 * User:Purplebackpack89
 * User:Racepacket
 * User:RightCowLeftCoast
 * User:Rrius
 * User:SarekOfVulcan
 * User:The ed17
 * User:Tomwsulcer

What is the dispute?
1) Who is allowed to participate in discussions regarding the scope and operations of WPUS?

2) What should be the mission and scope of WPUS? diff

3) Whether the WikiProject should put its project banner on the talk pages of thousands of articles already covered by state-level or special topic WikiProjects or should be placed only on articles of national or regional signficance. (debate shifted today diff)

4) Whether the WikiProject should put its project banner on the talk pages of biography articles of most United States persons or just those of current or historic national signficance? (debate shifted today diff)

5) If the consensus is to have a limited number of articles tagged with the project banner, how will the excess tagged articles be rolled back?

6) Whether the WikiProject will send out promotional messages without notice and consensus to 2400 individual editors or to 211+ US related WikiProject talk pages? Will there be an internal WikiProject procedure for review and approval?  Will the prior consent of the WikiProjects be obtained, or an opt-out provision be provided?

7) What procedure should be used to prevent unilateral promotional messages from going out in the name of the WikiProject?

8) Any bot, subscription list, or other tool needed to perform a project function should be coordinated on the project level in a transparent manner rather than be controlled by just one individual operating unilaterally without consensus.

What would you like to change about this?
People need to address each item without rankor, personal attacks, talking past each other, trying marginalize or "chase away" editors, or claiming that all members of WPUS who do not comment agree with you. Preferably, the mediator should be knowledgable about Wikipedia standards of conduct relating to leaving unsolicited promotional messages on other talk pages. The mediator could keep the current draft, listening to all paritesso that people will not agree or disagree based on who is stating a draft proposal.

How do you think we can help?
We are here to help you, but we need to know how. Sometimes mediators will look at a dispute and have no idea where to start, so please help us out. Do note that we will not "take sides" in any dispute. 1) Read the RFC thead. 2) Ask all participants for their positions. 3) Present a draft and repeat. Although the mediator should not take sides, he should be prepared to ignore personal attacks and "editor X has no right to comment because he is not an official member of my wikiproject."

The outcome would be a statement of mission and scope on the Project page, a subscription list/subscribe/unsubscribe that is operated in a transparent fashion.

Mediator notes
This case has been closed because the original filer was banned from Wikipedia in it's entirety. Please note that if this case wishes to be reopened by another party, they may make the appropriate request at the Mediation Cabal page. Thank you, LTC b2412 Troops  Talk 09:26, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Discussion
Um, why was I not notified of my being mentioned in conjunction with this? Also, I do not see how I am involved in some sort of cabal or conspiracy  Pur ple  back pack 89    16:49, 29 January 2011 (UTC)


 * This seems like a delaying issue more than anything else. I seriously doubt you will get any substantial number of people to support the need for a mediator. Racepacket is operating against a very clear consensus -- see [|this discussion] that Racepacket initiated at ANI about the same time that this request was initiated. Racepacket reverted a consensus decision supported by seven editors with only Racepacket disagreeing. Several other topics seem to be breaking down to three in favor and Racepacket against.  It does not seem like mediation is at all appropriate. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 17:50, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It was just pointed out in one of the other areas where Racepacket requested comments Who can tag articles. Feel free to go there for more info I just wanted to pass the word since there are multiple discussions going on about the same thing in different locations. --Kumioko (talk) 00:52, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That was supposed be one of the notices to send interested people to the centralized RFC on the WT:WPUS page. I still do not understand why Kumioko is trying to start a branch fork of the discussion there. I have been encouraging people to keep the discussion centralized in one location. Now that we have established a centralized discussion location, at first I tried to facilitate the discussion, acknowledging the incorporating the suggestions of people from all sides of the issue. But now I appear to be the target of some ire, so we need a neutral mediator to take over. Racepacket (talk) 20:38, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * STOP trying to blame me for your wasteful tactics to distract everyones time. You are submitting complaints to every venue you can think of to try and waste my time in this nonsense. Now knock it off. This is harrassment. You made a complaint, everyone talked about it, you didn't like the outcome now deal with it and grow up. --Kumioko (talk) 21:23, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmm. You all need to take a chill pill. Whatever your dispute is, don't tell other editors to "grow up". Always act in good faith, even if you think they are not. Lord Roem (talk) 18:15, 2 February 2011 (UTC)