Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/2008 Archive 2

Arabic Wikipedia
Please, do take a look to this arabic wiki issue

Inform me please, if u can help it, nd wether jimbo is able to implment an atheist or a shia muslim in the beraucrat team.

Regards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.22.82.31 (talk) 17:46, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Problem with Other Editors of an Article
I'm having a problem with some other editors on an article I've been contributing to for a long time. I was searching for a way to begin the effort of correcting the most recent abuses and for ways to contact the Wikipedia organization for help when I happened across the "Cabal".

Since I'd like to accomplish the "reform" by starting with a feather and working my way up to the hammer only if all else fails, it seemed like it was worth some effort to contact the Cabal before going to the more "official" abuse mechanisms of Wikipedia.

Before identifying the article, I want to see if this is something that fits within your group's field of interest and if this forum is the proper place to begin. I can provide a little background to start with without being too specific just yet.

The particular article contains controversial subject matter and every so often a number of hard-nosed individuals drift in and begin deleting material and hanging tags all over the place labeling unspecified items in the article as "original research" or demanding unspecified portions be sourced.

It wouldn't be so bad if the offending individuals bothered to document their objections and deletions on the discussion page so that remedies or alternatives could be proposed and worked out, but they don't. They just unilaterally impose the changes. Every attempt to remove the offending tags, restore deleted material or edit the article is reverted and labelled as "vandalism" and these individuals threaten to "block" those who are trying to correct the abuse. Instead of making the article better, these individuals are sabotaging it.

I have finally had enough and really want to put the brakes on this sort of periodic "hijacking". I recognize the futility of trying to communicate with these individuals myself and would like help in either bringing the matter to the Wikipedia organization for correction, or else convince the offending individuals to stop the abuse and cooperate in making the article better.

It would be great if the material they have deleted without justification could be restored. Maybe these individuals could be convinced that placing tags on the article without detailing the issues on the discussion page is itself a form of vandalism, I don't know. But I would also be just as glad to get information that will help me bring the matter to more formal abuse correcting mechanisms within Wikipedia, if that's all that can be done.

By the way, I don't log in because I choose to exercise that choice. For reasons that seem good to me, I disagree that everyone must log in with a "handle". Since this option is supported by Wikipedia, it is a legitimate method of contributing, though some may disagree with the choice. I hope that won't be a problem. If it is I'll move on to the next tier and not bother you again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.101.1.76 (talk) 09:33, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Your very welcome to start mediation at the cabal if you wish, all you have to do is go to WP:MEDCAB and follow the instructions there to list an official "case" which will be reviewed and mediated accordingly. Atyndall93  |  talk  10:18, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I have taken you up on your kind offer of help. By the way, the article in question is the Wikipedia Dean Drive article. I hope we can resolve the situation.

63.230.204.90 (talk) 07:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC) [User I/Dean User]

How long does it take?
I added a new case by using the template just a few minutes ago; just wondering how soon does it usually show up on the list? Thanks, Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 19:38, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah, it's there now. "Never mind!" Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 19:39, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * For the record, the medcab bot runs once every 10 minutes. Xavexgoem (talk) 20:41, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

"Cosmetic surgery" and the surgical special of "Plastic and Reconstructive surgery" not exactly the same thing.
"Cosmetic surgery" and the surgical specialty of "Plastic and reconstructive surgery" are not the same thing. They should be separate articles. The "cosmetic surgery" article on cosmetics is consistently being redirected to a different article about a related but separate topic (ie. the specialty of plastics).

Here are some examples of the current representative bodies for "cosmetic surgery":


 * Australasian College of Cosmetic Surgery
 * American Academy of Cosmetic Surgery
 * American Board of Cosmetic Surgery
 * Canadian Academy of Cosmetic Surgery
 * European Academy of Cosmetic Surgery
 * Is facial cosmetic surgery for you?

http://www.americanboardcosmeticsurgery.org/fellowship_route.php training requirements for US board certification in cosmetic surgery]

Even without fellowship training in cosmetics, many specialties are actually required to each cosmetics as part of their standard residency training program (example Otolaryngology and Maxillofacial surgery Board certification exams have a substantial component devoted to cosmetics 15-30%)

There are many medical/surgical specialties that utilise cosmetic surgical techniques and procedures and are equally licensed to provide such procedures, not only the surgical specialty of "Plastic and reconstructive surgery". Redirecting the entire article to the Plastic surgery article suggests a certain POV that only Plastic surgeons can provide cosmetic procedures to the public and this is not true. Cosmetic surgery procedures are performed by many specialties (one of which being plastic surgery).. others being OMFS, ENT, Opth, General surg, Urology, etc. Please help. Thank you. Jwri7474 (talk) 09:27, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Stephanie Adams Article
Hello, there seems to be a lot of animosity/jealousy by users who have been editing the article on Stephanie Adams, even on the discussion page. Can someone step in and stop people from making personal attacks against the subject matter? This woman obviously does not know anyone of them personally and her article should no longer be edited by people who clearly have some sort of gripe against her. If they do not like her, then perhaps they should write about someone else. 71.167.226.96 (talk) 08:34, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * When considering this request from 71.167.226.96 please be aware that she has referred to other editors as "sicko", "retard", "idiot", "flunky" and peppers her contributions with "You took your hand off your little thing between your legs long enough to type" and other such comments. (Her contribution to Talk:Stephanie Adams at .) So, yes, there does seem to be an inappropriate amount of animosity and personal attacks from people who have some sort of gripe.  But let's be clear on who is actually the source. -- Sean Martin (talk) 18:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

First of all, I am a "he", not a "she". Second, I never left comments like that and am starting to wonder if you are mentally all there. Sean Martin, stop obsessing over Stephanie Adams and stop leaving personal attacks about her on her discussion page just because she sued your friend and beat him. Miss Adams does not know you and will never want to know you. End of story. 71.167.226.96 (talk) 23:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * "I never left comments like that" Just follow the link I provided.  If not you then someone coming thru the exact same IP address and clearly you should look much closer to home when admonishing folks to stop personal attacks.  (Any confusion, if it exists, could be easily alleviated if you got a named Wiki account.  Avoiding anonymity would also help credibility.)  "stop leaving personal attacks about her on her discussion page"  Please provide even one example.  "she sued your friend and beat him"  You can keep saying that, but it will remain untrue.  She has threatened and harassed, but not sued any friends of mine.  Assuming her suit against James Poling is what you are referring to, again, I've never met him, never spoken to him, do not know him personally, am not friends with him.
 * Now, I will continue to respond to any postings you or anyone makes containing falsehoods about me. I'll stop the moment you do.  -- Sean Martin (talk) 00:50, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Objection to mediator
I strenuously object to serving as Mediator at Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2008-04-24_Wales. I'm not a party to the case, but Nothing444 is barely a week off his fourth block in a month. He does not understand policy or how to work collaboratively, let alone in a dispute resolution forum.  MBisanz  talk 05:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Moot/resolved. Vassyana (talk) 09:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Covert Incest
I helped out at Covert Incest and the dispute appears to have been resolved. Should I close it myself or let someone else do it? (I do not want to have people angry at me for being near MedCab) Geoff Plourde (talk) 01:40, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Michael Rutter, Attachment theory, John Bowlby
There are now three requests filed by Kingsley Miller in respect of the above articles but it is essentially the same issue. There has been a 3PO and a Source Noticeboard opinion already. I would suggest any interested mediator would need to deal with all three. Fainites barley 09:12, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with this!

KingsleyMiller (talk) 18:59, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Each one is also being used, not just to request mediation but to set out the same arguments and allegations as have already been set out on the respective talkpages, in addition to the maternal deprivation talkpage, and carried over from page to page. Each one involves disagreements between the same three editors about broadly the same set of assertions and allegations. Fainites barley 21:15, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

As the referral pages are now a hopeless mess, for the sake of any potential mediator, a rough list of issues for mediation purposes would be something along the lines of:

Fainites barley 20:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Attachment theory
Can somebody tell me who tried to erase part of the discussion at;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2008-04-25_Attachment_theory

KingsleyMiller (talk) 18:59, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * There's no sign of anything being removed in the ordinary history. Perhaps there was an edit conflict as there are two edits very close in time. Fainites barley 22:18, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Remove Spam Associated with my Company
Hello,

i am the owner of cruisedealership.com which appears as a spamming which is not true we DONOT condone it and i have spoken to my it department about ever posting on your sites they were not reading all of your guidelines.

please remove us from the blacklist

I am having trouble getting someone to help. can u kindly help as i am very concerned when people are searching thru google for my company information having that kind of comments related to my site. I spoke to my it department they tought in good standards they were trying to provide related content to subjects on wiki. or if you can foward this for immediate attention to the correct department

It was a mistake of poor judgement we are asking for forgiveness have u ever made a mistake. please remove spam associated with cruisedealership as we are a very ethical company and assure you no cruisedealership would ever be posted on ur company site again71.167.29.181 (talk) 23:33, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Please see the detailed chronology of this matter at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist. -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 01:16, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Cabal?
What is a Cabal? ΤΕΡΡΑΣΙΔΙΩΣ (Ταλκ ) 11:00, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * From Merriam-Webster Online "the artifices and intrigues of a group of persons secretly united in a plot (as to overturn a government); also : a group engaged in such artifices and intrigues." Basically the word has negative connotation, but the Mediation Cabal plays on that word to make it seem more friendly and less likely to bite someone's head off, as Wikipedia pages ever so often do. Cowman109 Talk 01:56, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Here on Wikipedia, a cabal is "they," the ones who have conspired to thwart every edit you'll ever want to make through skeinish takes on Wikipedia policy, which they change at their whim. The cabal is unknown and unknowable, as are their goals but I think these may have something to do with this, maybe this though. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:03, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Lol yeah i guessed that but ive heard the word "in real life" before and i cant for the life of me remember where; im sure it was in a religious context, cant find out anything apart from wikipedia on the net, maybe im doing it wrong. enlightenment please? :) ΤΕΡΡΑΣΙΔΙΩΣ (Ταλκ ) 13:47, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Ulster Defence Regiment
I would request some mediation on the Ulster Defence Regiment page. I have been editing for about a month now and am finding severe resistance to my work from several other editors who, it would appear, have taken umbrage at me improving the article. I am certainly not being treated in good faith as a newcomer but rather I am being bombarded with deletions, reminders of Wikipedia policy and guidelines, accusations of conflict of interest, incivility and personal attacks. My work is also being unfairly tagged (in my opinion) as "weasel words". As far as I can see I am being subjected to a form of filibustering in the hope that I'll give up but in the meantime my name is being dragged into disrepute with frivolous claims to admins that I am the one responsible for the edit warring. Third party editors have been in and have been of some assistance but it hasn't stopped the war against me and in fact the credibility of one editor has been called into question because he publicly praised my patience. I will not detail the entire issue here because it is long and complex and has been going on for almost a month. I would appeal for a neutral party (neutral to Irish issues) to review the article and discussion page and please give opinions and recommendations.

GDD1000 (talk) 14:16, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * This report should be considered in view of the above comments. --Domer48 (talk) 14:20, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * This editor has a case of WP:OWN the reason as he claims I am being bombarded with deletions is that the are all policy violations plain and simple. He's been asked several times to propose new additions on the talk page first, if they are compliant with policy they would be quickly agreed. He's refused to do this, he keeps repeatedly adding unsourced material, then edit warring when it's removed. Right now all that's needed is an admin who's prepared to step up to the plate and enforce policy especially considering the ArbCom case that covers this article, thanks BigDunc (talk) 14:53, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I request that this be included http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Traditional_unionist#Ulster_Defence_Regiment

GDD1000 (talk) 16:34, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Formal mediation now requested [] —Preceding unsigned comment added by GDD1000 (talk • contribs) 20:26, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

This case is now extending to the Remembrance Day Bombing article and similar edit warring is now in progress by user BigDunc (talk) who disputes the source at []. I request intervention please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GDD1000 (talk • contribs) 15:58, 4 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Sticking to our policies is not edit warring. Adding content as you are doing, which is not WP:V and WP:RS is disruptive, its not like you have not been told enough, but you choose to ignore the advice. --Domer48 (talk) 19:15, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I made 1 reversion GDD1000 makes 3 so please who is edit warring? BigDunc (talk) 19:24, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

How can I make three reversions when you only made one? Does this mean I am reverting the item three times to combat more than one editor acting in concert?GDD1000 (talk) 11:51, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You made 3 reverts I made 1 simple you are edit warring not me. And less of the conspiracy theories please and have a read of WP:AGF--BigDunc (talk) 13:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

If you made one revert then I only made one revert. Unless others made the same revert which I then reverted. How does that make it a suggestion of conspiracy? The history of the page is there as evidence of who made what reverts and when. If I want to make an allegation I'm quite capable of doing it and I resent the implication that I have done so. I request you keep your dialogue civil and stop Wikilawyering.GDD1000 (talk) 14:09, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * ...combat more than one editor acting in concert? your words, sounds like a conspiracy theory to me and as for The history of the page is there as evidence of who made what reverts and when Exactly I made 1 you made 3. now stop with the nonsense and dont be telling me to remain civil when I am being totally civil just presenting FACTS' you know them things. BigDunc (talk) 14:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

If it sounds like a conspiracy theory to you then I respectfully submit that does say more about you than it does me. If I made two more reverts than you then it stands to reason two more people reverted my input. I arrest my case. GDD1000 (talk) 15:38, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Can I repeat my request for mediation on this article please? The page protection has been lifted and editing has begun again. I have just done a rewrite and I suspect if the edit war is going to start again, now's when it will happen.GDD1000 (talk) 16:43, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Can we get some mediation help here
I came here because this dispute seems to span at least 100 articles and on a couple of user's talk pages is probably where it's probably best discussed, but I don't know how to add a mediation request on them. There are a couple of users (User:Yankees10 and User:Chrisjnelson) who have decided in the interest of uniformity to change every NFL player's article from saying "was drafted by..." to "was originally drafted by..." Their intent was to convey that this is where the player's career began. Often when a player moves to another team their article says they "originally came from such and such team and now are at another team". To make all the articles consistent they decided to make every single article say "originally" in them, even the ones who haven't moved to another team.

Since doing this they've gotten their articles reverted many times. Using the word originally implies they have been drafted more than once, when in fact they have not. Or it may imply they've moved on to another team, where in fact many of them have not. Several users feel putting "originally" into an article where it doesn't make sense is wrong, others have pointed out that it's bad grammar. They've gotten into editing wars over it, which is not uncommon for these two users. Chrisjnelson has been blocked 17 times for edit warring over the last year and Yankees10 was just blocked last week.

There has been discussions on both of their user pages about it (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Yankees10#Originally_drafted and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Chrisjnelson#Originally. At first I thought this was kind of a dumb argument, but it has potential to spiral out of control (they've put so much work into changing all the articles that at this point they wouldn't admit they were wrong even if they knew they are) so it would be nice to get some more points of view or have a ruling on it.  67.137.0.28 (talk) 18:17, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


 * A mediation case has been started on this topic. Please see Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-05-05 Tyrell Johnson (American football) for more discussion on this subject. 67.137.0.28 (talk) 00:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Does MedCab have a logo/icon?
Does the Medication Cabal have a logo/symbol/icon for those Wikipedians who like to put icons of projects they participate in on their userpage (aka me)? Because if it doesn't I think it needs one, so that it can be identified by the wider wikipedian world (the WWW, I don't think that acronym is taken :-D) etc. Atyndall93  |  talk  02:18, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

If the project doesn't have a logo, I came up with some ideas:

Thoughts? Steve Crossin  (talk)  (email)  05:15, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Interesting, can we make the dove less complex an image?  MBisanz  talk 05:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I like the dove one. The other ones seem like they'd be related to racial matters, when they are not. Monobi (talk) 21:57, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Added a new one, vectorised. Steve Crossin   (contact)  05:42, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Problem to acess to WP
I can access to Wikepidia. Can you help me please. I edit this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banu_Ifran when some problem get me. I need help.--Great11 (talk) 21:42, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but I don't quite understand your question. If you need help on how to edit a page why not try reading our introduction to new users, if this is not your problem please be more specific of what your problem is. Atyndall93 | talk 03:26, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Mediation advice requested
There's a major bunfight ongoing at Talk:Muhammad al-Durrah about the presentation of a conspiracy theory in the text of the article. It's already been raised on WP:AN/I and WP:FTN, without any satisfactory resolution - if anything it's got worse with the arrival of single-purpose accounts posting inflammatory political rants. I think it's got well beyond the stage where informal mediation would be useful. I'm aware that Requests for mediation requires a number of steps to have been taken before formal mediation is requested; is a (very lengthy) talk page, AN/I and FTN discussion sufficient evidence of prior unsuccessful dispute resolution? -- ChrisO (talk) 00:25, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that the cases are reviewed on a case-by-case basis, meaning that it could be rejected if you don't try informal mediation first off (as it is the step immediately below Formal Mediation), so I suggest that you file a case and see if the informal mediators can handle it (remember, the formal mediators are just normal Wikipedians as well). If we can't it can be referred to formal mediation. Atyndall93 | talk 01:00, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much for the advice. I will post a request tomorrow - err, later today now :) - which should hopefully cover it.

Please help mediate a dispute
Hi. Another editor and myself have a dispute regarding the article Zero Mostel. We have so far failed to resolve this amongst ourselves (see discussion at Talk:Zero Mostel under “Emerson7 changes”). I’ve accepted some of the other editor’s changes, but feel that I can’t accept all of them without doing harm to the page. I wouldn’t like to go to an official dispute resolution, and so I would accept the opinion of impartial, experienced editors. Would you please agree to mediate in this dispute? I thanks you in advance. Ron g (talk) 13:16, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * We are perfectly happy to mediate your dispute, feel free to list the case as described at WP:MedCab. Atyndall93 | talk 03:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much. I've done so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ron g (talk • contribs) 12:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

mediation cabal logo
I suggest removing the "cabal approved" stamp from the main page of the Mediation Cabal. Although I appreciate the humor, users come here to resolve serious disputes. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 07:30, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Mediation template overhauls
I recoded Medcabstatus to look like an infobox and added some minor features, I made Medcab-request look like a talk page box, redid Medcab2's descriptions to be more informative and made Medcab much more informative. Opinions on the changes? Atyndall93 | talk 09:04, 14 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I think they all look great :D Steve Crossin   (talk)  (email)  04:30, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Sooo much better, thank you :-) Xavexgoem (talk) 01:28, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Very nice. I've put the new logo in a userbox, user informal mediation.--PhilKnight (talk) 00:01, 20 June 2008 (UTC)