Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/2008 Archive 4

Chairing duties required at WP:IDTF (Ireland disambiguation task force)
I'm not sure this is the best place to put this, but what we don't want to is put up a template for a format MEDCAB dispute resolution. We do need help however.

We are looking for someone who:


 * Is a neutral party who not been involved with the 'Ireland naming' issue before on Wikipedia, or has substantially edited on Irish political matters. Minor declared edits should not be a problem.


 * Someone with a neutral and dispassionate view to the idea of change.


 * Someone who has no particularly strong views on the outcome either way (although I am sure we all respect it as hard to be completely NPOV on this matter).


 * Someone who accepts this could be mostly 'donkey work', but accepts that dispute resolution skills could possibly come into play - although this is not what is being requested: we essentially need someone willing to chair certain matters and help move things along.

To begin with, we need someone to chair an 'input session' from all parties involved. We have not yet fully agreed how it will work, and all suggestions are welcome. We respect your time, and any desire you might have to pass on the mantle. I am making this MEDCAB request with the backing of a only a few editors (although around 8 have given their support for a neutral party's involvement), but nobody has expressed disapproval over making this request, so I have gone ahead. Presumably, with a neutral chair, others will become more involved.

State of play (and a personal note):

I created this taskforce as an WP:bold act. I didn't poll for it, as people were objecting to more debate on this matter at the time (there had been a number of failed polls for change at Republic of Ireland and WP:IMOS), and although I knew there would be some opposition alongside the support for an unpolled taskforce at this time, I didn't foresee the quick MfD that happened: the MfD is still running, although this is very much towards 'keep' at this stage. A significant support is there, and some editors have moved towards accepting it under various discussed terms (I have halted the opening 10-vote proposal, for example, to dispel fears of forum shopping). However, people are clearly not happy with one partisan person leading the way, hence the various discussion (including some on my talk page) which has lead to this request.

Related main articles:


 * Republic of Ireland
 * Ireland
 * Northern Ireland
 * WP:IMOS
 * Other related links are in WP:IDTF

Please sign below if interested. Regards, --Matt Lewis (talk) 23:23, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * * Comment: The discussion on the best way forward is still ongoing with a neutral editor one of the possibilities.  Some of us think that an editor with knowledge of the issues (in a fraught area), but who has respect within the group and is willing to be neutral, would be a better idea (and thought we had expressed that clearly).  Such a person may not be found but there is one candidate.  If a mediator is brought in they should be free to structure the process themselves and the terms probably need to be agreed by the various editors involved.  Best to wait a few days and then see what happens.  If there is no "internal" candidate then (with some alternations to the brief) then this request would have my full support. -- Snowded   TALK  23:36, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That 'candidate', User:BrownHairedGirl, suggested a neutral party herself, and has not contibuted to the debate for a few days now. I have said many times that I find her stated initial negativity towards change, her stated bias towards the status quo, and also (now I must mention it) her previous involvement with involved editors like Sarah777 and Irish issues in general (not to mention that she has suggested a neutral party is needed, and has not put herself forward) make her an excellent contributor, but completely unsuitable as a chair. Surely these things have to be chaired by neutrals. --Matt Lewis (talk) 23:50, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Have you gotten anyone yet? I'd take it on. I've never even been to Ireland let alone edited an Ireland topic here ever.  fr33k man  t -  c 14:01, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Proposal for mediator school
→  See also : 

Hi all! I wondered what people thought to the idea of a new dispute resolution and mediator school? I have started a draft of some stuff here. It is only a draft suggestion but I think a place to start from and to at least show the idea. If people wanted to take a look and then comment here (or there) of the validity of the idea and/or the content of the school, that'd be great. Thanks! :-)  fr33k man   -s-  01:35, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * (Added user talk links above.)  fr33k man   -s-  17:14, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Moving longer disputes away from WT:MOS
We recently had a long dispute over recommending against curly quotes (“”) in article-space at WT:MOS. We didn't reach any resolution, but we stopped anyway, because long contentious arguments tend to interfere with the noticeboard and help functions of that page, and it didn't look like we were getting anywhere. I recommended people take it up at some dispute resolution page, but that didn't happen. I'm scratching my head; I think it would be a mistake to bring it up again at WT:MOS, but this isn't just about making editors happy, it's about making it easy for information to flow in and out of Wikipedia and making it easy to find it. (To pick out one point of many, most people won't register that they saw curly quotes, and if they try to find what they just read in curly quotes, they'll search for straight quotes, and not find it.) I'm asking for suggestions on which dispute resolution forum to use. I'm putting the change to curly quotes in this month's WP:Update; it wasn't in WP:MOS before, at least recently. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 20:43, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, nevermind, all seems to be well at the moment. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 03:15, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Rhydymwyn-Valley Works
This has been resolved by Silvertip. Thank you ColinBa (talk) 20:22, 9 November 2008 (UTC)ColinBaColinBa (talk) 20:22, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Proposed changes
We've (the folks hanging out on our IRC channel) been thinking about changing a few things about how medcab works, particularly the requesting process. One of the largest problems us informal mediators are having is folks poisoning the well with the request details. Since the primary job of any mediator is to add sanity to a discussion, we think it's a mediator's prerogative - not a requester - to fill in the dispute details. I'm thinking at least 1/4 of all cases would be more solvable if the details about the dispute ("what's going on", etc) were defined by the mediator. This will avoid - at least - content issues masquerading as behavioral issues ("we want editor X to abide by WP:CIVIL etc"... not very helpful when any given dispute is - at it's core - about the content and not the contributors... it also makes it easier for mediators good at flipping behavioral disputes into content disputes, since we're not constrained so much be unwarranted expectations).

Requests will still need to be made, but we're thinking something along 3O is probably better: an extremely concise request is almost always better than a long one, in my experience. From there, it's up to the inf. mediator whether s/he will start the discussion on the article's talk page (preferred in many instances), or create a casepage from scratch (templates provided, of course).

This'll also remove a lot of the problems with our rather bizarre request process. An idea I've had for a while is to just pin up a medcab template on the talk page in the format (any other ideas? I realize this overlaps a bit too much with 3O). Then medcabbot will do its usual business... a lot of its code can be trimmed if we go through with this at any rate.

All of this is an effort to make medcab a bit more agile. We can cut down the difficulty in making a request, which'll make the project page nicer and smaller and less intimidating; we can define what the actual problems are, since a lot of the time we're better at communicating what the actual problem is than the parties in dispute can; and it just adds a heckuva lot more maneuverability to us informal mediators (oversight will remain of course, and makes a bit more sense since the process would be less clearly defined).

Questions? Comments? Trout-slappings? Xavexgoem (talk) 07:31, 13 November 2008 (UTC) Summary: quick requests, less intimidating, more mediator prerogative.

Templates that needs work-on: Template:medcab (filing instructions), Template:medcab2 (casepage template), Template:medcab-request (the template that's added to the top of the talk page - gets you to template:medcab which transcludes medcab2), Template:medcabbox (overly large infobox w/ message of informal mediation linking to casepage w/ etiquette guidelines, etc), Template:medcabstatus (all know what this is - medcabbot reads info off of this).

Medcab and medcab2 have been edited somewhat. once request process is figured out, change medcab-request. Medcabstatus comes last, since changes to that can break the bot. Medcabbox can probably be smallized and made less formal.

Project space that needs need work-on: WP:Mediation Cabal (obviously; worth mentioning since this is where documentation is), WP:Mediation Cabal/Cases (will be changed as request process is thought out), WP:Mediation Cabal/Suggestions for mediators (more indepth stuff here), WP:Mediation Cabal/Volunteers (a page that's never updated, but looks like something is going on ;-))
 * I'd be happy to fix all those things up. I need to go have a smoke; when I'm back I'll outline what I think needs to be changed, place demos on a subpage. roux    23:52, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * That'd be awesome. Thanks Xavexgoem (talk) 00:10, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Yonsei
The knotty issues in the collapsed bar-below are, for the moment, moot. The mere act of trying to order my thoughts was helpful. Maybe this has become one of those tempests-in-a-teapot which require no further investments of time or close scrutiny? --Tenmei (talk) 02:06, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

This quandry is beyond my ability to handle. The sum of the following elements become a difficult-to-unravel Gordian Knot; but there you have it.
 * Claim/hypothesis/fact #1: Again and again, Caspian blue conventionally contrives disputes as a strategic device -- as an arguably effective tool for avoiding the minimal burdens of WP:V. Prosecuting extravagant claims which divert attention from substantive research and credibly sourced facts is a gambit which works well. Also, the tactic tends to drive away those willing to accord slim contributions close scrutiny, e.g., a botched attempt at mediation concerning an article with dimensions of Korean and Japanese nationalism.
 * Claim/hypothesis/fact #2: Caspian blue initiated a hoax AfD which cannot succeed at Articles for deletion/Yonsei (fourth-generation Nikkei).
 * Claim/hypothesis/fact #3: Caspian blue is now attempting to convert a trivial tempest-in-a-teapot into another in a long series of feigned causes for offense, indignation, outrage, e.g.,
 * Talk:Yonsei (fourth-generation Nikkei)?
 * Talk:Yonsei (fourth-generation Nikkei)?

Structure and substance are at times arguably conflated, but I don't see how this accounts for the escalating, accusatory tenor of Caspian blue's language.

Bluntly -- succinctly: These are wrongly chosen venues for an disruptive proxy wars which do not help forward the goals of the Wikipedia project. I have not selected this awkward Rubicon; but there it is. For reasons which remain unclear, Caspian blue has chosen to make this something to fight about. Perhaps thoughtful intervention is now timely; but maybe delay is best. In any event, posting here becomes a plausible step in a useful direction. --Tenmei (talk) 19:46, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Requests_for_arbitration/Coolcat,_Davenbelle_and_Stereotek
This clarification motion passed. Remedy one of the case is lifted. Full clarification is archived on the case talk page.  — Rlevse • Talk  • 22:17, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Advice needed
I've got a long lasted disagreement with group of editors regarding articles Massacres_of_Poles_in_Volhynia Proclamation_of_Ukrainian_statehood,_1941 Ukrainian_Insurgent_Army International_Commission_of_Inquiry_Into_the_1932%E2%80%9333_Famine_in_Ukraine content – it mostly related to WP:ISNOT and WP:NPOV (WP:UNDUE) rules and WP reliability -. So I need to correctly put a mediation case for all issues since all issues related to OUN-B activities of the past. There tend to remove or misrepresent referenced trough RS information. Jo0doe (talk) 08:20, 24 November 2008 (UTC)


 * This user is involved in a one-man low-level revert war (low level, because he doesn't revert 3 times in one day but has been doing so every few days for months) against almost every other active user on those pages: . While I and others have been drawn into revert warring and even name-calling by Jo0doe (talk), such behavior is limited to my interactions with him.  With him, it is the norm in his approach to wikipedia.  He has been warned for such here:  and here:   Despite such warnings he continues to smear others, such as here when he implied that members of the Ukrainian community abroad are Nazi collaborators or murderers:  andwhen he even accused other editors of supporting Nazi collaborators:.


 * Since Jo0doe (talk) limits his disruptions to Ukrainian topics, most of the people who revert him seem to be Ukrainians. But not exclusively - he has also engaged in revert warring with User:Narking as seen here:.


 * In addition to the revert warring, there is a pattern of numerous disruptive edits. A good summary of the type of disuptions Jo0doe (talk) engages in is here:.  Note that this was written back in March 2008, and the problem with this one particular editor Jo0doe (talk) continues.  This editor's version of articles, in addition to content problems, are notorious for very poor English - to the point of sometimes being difficult to understand.  For an example of the version of the article that he tries to force against almost every other editor, please read here: Faustian (talk) 02:35, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi, this page is not for arguing a case. It is for discussing MedCab in general. Please go here and follow the instructions to start a case. Thank you. // roux   03:46, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion of valid articles by Largoplazo and Orangemike
I moved article from (Texas Station) to (Texas Station Gambling Hall and Hotel) and it was marked for speedy deletion by Largoplazo. I contacted him and explained that i had moved the page from another article that wasn't named correctly and that the other article had never been contested. I then gave explanation on the article talk page as well. He replied back and I posted a response back on the talk page. Immediately user Orangemike deleted article and talk page. I don't know if this is the same persion with two id's or if they or friends or maybe not associated at all. Talk page has been deleted so you can't see the valid reasons I gave for this article. I believe a consensus should be taken before article's are deleted. I am trying to be constructive here and add to wikiproject: nevada and wikiprojects:las vegas which i am part of. These two also immediately deleted another article I started that I had moved from article that was named wrong. The article I moved was from (Boulder Station) to (Boulder Station Hotel and Casino). I don't think either one of them read my response because the links to original articles are still in place. You can pull up (Texas Station) and (Boulder Station) but the redirect I added in the articles goes to the deleted pages. Shouldn't more restraint be used in these deletion privleges? Please let me know if you think I'm in the wrong here. If you can pull up my comments on the talk page then read that. If you think the articles are valid is there a way to repost them without having to build them from scratch again. Thanks. --BoldSolitude (talk) 19:00, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * For the sake of context and to spare folks possible duplication of effort, the section at User_talk:Largoplazo and the two following sections on my talk page, all initiated by BoldSolitude, cover the majority of what we've discussed. I also left some comments on his talk page. —Largo Plazo (talk) 19:42, 24 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Response:
 * Every argument largoplazo is making seems to be heated and the points being made are unclear. it looks like he's trying to convince me his definition of notable is the right one. Trying to be impartial and understanding why he thinks this why, I came to a conclusion.  I can see where he's coming from if the subject was slot_machine.  On this, I would agree with him.  I don't think a slot club is notable or should be included on wikipedia.  These several thousand square foot casinos with multi hundred room suites part of a corporate conglomerate are far from slot clubs.  If someone wrote an article about a hole in the wall 100 slot machine slot club then I would support what largoplazo is supporting, but this is not the case. --BoldSolitude (talk) 20:26, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm certain that my multiple explanations to you that questions of notability on Wikipedia are governed by the guidelines in WP:Notability and that discussions of notability need to be made in light of those guidelines were quite clear. But even here, your latest argument (the comparison to slot machines) is completely ad hoc, made without any reference to those guidelines. —Largo Plazo (talk) 20:44, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe I should have made sure that I included independant sources as specified by the Notability guidelines mentioned above when posting the articles. I was going to expand the articles when I had time. Like I've said, they were already established articles. I was just moving them to articles with the correct official name.  Both hotels have gotten extensive coverage in www.lasvegassun.com and www.lvrj.com, both independant and leading news media outlets.  If the articles hadn't been delted so quickly I could have supplied the articles or if they had simply been flagged with cite external references instead of deletion then I could have done that. Cite external references tag might be a better way to approach such articles in the future.  What got me so riled up initially was that I was going back into the talk page to cite another artcile that had been flagged for speedy deletion and it was denied.  If the above mentioned users hadn't been so hasty in deleting it without absorbing what I was saying on the talk page then I would have add time to post that example.  Again, I agree that external references should be given to establish notability.  I would have preferred the article had been tagged with cite external references and I would have been glad to take the additional time to do so.  Any article that I have written myself I have taken the time to have all the references ready.  The speedy deletion request that was denied was denied because of this.  I take responsibility for not adding external references in these articles when I moved them.  Restore them and I would add them at my earliest convenience, certainly within a 24hr timeframe. thanks, --BoldSolitude (talk) 21:02, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Please, can someone address this as soon as possible. Largoplazo is now systematically going through casino pages marking them for speedy deletion when there is not even a resolution on this. He is displaying destructive procedures. A resolution should be reached on this before any other pages are marked for deletion.--BoldSolitude (talk) 22:18, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi, this page is not for arguing a case. It is for discussing MedCab in general. Please go here and follow the instructions to start a case. Thank you. // roux   22:51, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I have done as you instructed on the third article the user mentioned above flagged. I couldn't do it on the other two becasue the articles were flagged and deleted within minutes of each other. The second article was flagged and deleted before I could leave a response on the talk page and I was in front of my computer so I couldn't start a case like the instructions stated. Please anyone that sees this leave this all here until a mediator can read all of this. I referred to it in my case file.  Thanks again Roux, I really appreciate the help. --BoldSolitude (talk) 23:21, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Noah's Ark
Noah's_Ark is being dealt with in other means of dispute resolution - Should I close the case submitted to us? Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2008-11-28_Noah's_Ark
 * This editor dismissed this case way too quickly, without any feedback or discussion from the involved editors. Since myself and the person who filed the request for mediation both agree this needs to go ahead, can this be re-opened please? Cheers, Ben (talk) 01:06, 7 December 2008 (UTC)