Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-06-21 Usage of Vcrisi in the Hugo Chavez article

Questions on acceptance of mediation
Hi, Dev920. Thanks for taking on the case: I know that mediation can be difficult, tiring and often thankless work, and I'm grateful you have offered to help.

I do have some concerns, though. I may not have raised these concerns at all, except that I noticed a less than accurate statement already at the top of the mediation page, before I had even been notified or responded ("what is Sandy's rationale for adding the link"). It concerns me a bit to see my position characterized already by the neutral mediator. So, my other concerns are:


 * I noticed you've been on Wikipedia for less time than I (which is not much time at all :-)
 * I noticed you don't have a lot of edits, and very little experience in very controversial articles.
 * I noticed this is the first case you've mediated.
 * I saw a lot of userboxes on your user page (none that cause me any problem whatsoever), but I didn't notice if you have any knowledge of Spanish.  Are you aware that a lot of the content leading to disagreement is in Spanish?
 * It may no longer be customary, but in the past, I've seen mediators offer their services only after asking if anyone objected to the mediator for any reason (in which case, another mediator takes the case).
 * It may no longer be customary, but I've also known mediators to be sure to notify involved parties on their talk pages, before proceeding. Is that a customary way to proceed? Flanker is speaking for me, and you are speaking about me on this Mediation, but I've not been invited to the table.  In fact, at this juncture, I don't even know if my response on the case is requested or warranted.  I'm responding because there are references to "both of you" on the project page, so I'm guessing the questions may be directed at me.

Flanker presents this as mediation over one external link, but he has suggested mediation before over minor items, and a thorough review of the talk page should reveal that the problems are much deeper and broader than one external link. Hugo Chavez is a very controversial topic. To give you an idea, the article was recently subjected to a FARC and a major revert to a six-month-old version, with no prior consensus, both involving editors other than Flanker or myself, and who have limited to no editing history on the article.

What interested you in this case? My concern is whether you thought you were only mediating one external link between two editors as your first case, and if you feel you have the necessary experience to take on what could become a challenging case, involving much broader issues and multiple editors? I am not requesting another mediator (yet): just want to explore whether you've considered the depth and breadth of the issue. I will admit that I'm concerned that we don't seem to have set off on a neutral footing. And, from what I've seen of other controversies involving the editor who supported the six-month revert, we have to allow for the possibility that this case could become much more complex than it appears on first pass. Thanks, Sandy 05:51, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


 * If you felt my comment was designed to characterise you, I apologise. I probably worded it badly; I was in fact, hoping YOU would answer that question. Although I would disagree over 700 edits is not "a lot", it is true that a lot of them are stub sorting. However, if you go look at talk:Islam and talk:Jake Gyllenhaal, you will see that I am no stranger to controversy.


 * What exactly concerns you that this is my first case? Are we not all assuming good faith? The mistakes you have mentioned were made because I have read the suggestions for mediators and looked at a few cases close to closure, and did't see that I needed to do any of that. As it is, you have raised your objections to me being a mediator anyway, so did it really matter?


 * I was speaking about you in mediation (although, per my comment above, I was assuming you yourself would answer questions) because I knew you would read it, and I was trying to get both sides of the issue. As only one side, as I knew at the time, was online, I was trying to get theirs first. I apologise if you feel that I was acting in a biased way; this was certainly not intended.


 * Although much of the content may be Spanish, I do not feel this was relevant to the case. I am mediating (or hope to be, at any rate) between two people that can speak English, and if it does become necessary, I can always ask you or another neutral spanish speaker to translate for me.


 * What attracted me to this mediation case was that I was not attracted to edit the article in any way. I felt that this could give me very good neutrality in the matter. I am not planning to leave Wikipedia anytime soon, so however long or complicated this debate gets, I can deal with that. The aim is a good article, not a fast mediation, is it not?


 * I hope these have addressed your concerns. I won't edit the mediation case before I am generally accepted as mediator. I apologise once more if we have had any misunderstandings as the result of my posts. This IS my first case, and though I may be a good mediator in real life, my knowledge of procedures in mediation are limited to what I have read on the mediation case files. I hope this does not deter you. Dev920 07:32, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


 * No apology needed, Dev 920. It does not deter me, and I appreciate the lengthy response.  My concern was whether you were aware that it may be a complicated case, as a first case:  it may not turn into what it appears to be, as presented by Flanker.  So, moving on, is it possible for you to thoroughly review the talk page, Archive 9 and Archive 10, and then consider changing the statement, "what is Sandy's rationale for adding the link" to a more neutral statement, providing a neutral foundation from which I can add my response?  The article underwent a major revert, it was FARCed basically for POV, and the issue is not that I added a link, but that Flanker wants to delete a link that was specifically included in the Featured Article version, to provide what (very little) balance exists in the article.  People reading the Mediation Case in the future may not get beyond the opening of the case, and may believe that I am insisting on adding one External Link, or that I added it, and it's not a particularly high quality link.   I wouldn't want the Mediation to set a non-neutral tone from the outset.  If it's not possible for you to change that comment, then perhaps you could transfer the entire Mediation to a new Case name, with the spelling in the title corrected, and we could start over.  Alternately, whatever you think is the best way to move forward, but in a way that doesn't appear to set a non-neutral tone from the outset ... thanks for considering, Sandy 14:08, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I most certainly can do all of that. Please bear in mind, as I will be out of town tomorrow and Saturday, that my internet access may be patchy and my response may be a bit delayed, as I try to read everything you have requested. After those days, I will be able to turn my full attention to the case though. Dev920 15:12, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks, much better now. I'm also running out of time, and have a full day tomorrow, so will turn my attention to this on Sunday, after your travel is complete.  Thanks again for considering my concern, Sandy 15:53, 22 June 2006 (UTC)