Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-08-07 Democracy (disambiguation)

Regarding Bruce's comment on my statement, the only reference to him I see in my opening paragraph is my opinion that he "misunderstood and/or mischaracterized" the activity in my userspace. Since it would be possible for someone with the best intentions to accidentally do this, the phrasing can hardly be considered as insulting or poor treatment. My inclination is to include it with the "stonewalling", "secret negotiations", etc. which I was also unable to identify, as honest but inconsequential misreadings requiring no further response.

Similarly, while I can hardly agree that there was any shortage of "reasoned explanation" on the Talk page, if this submission has finally done the trick I am delighted. Does "understand and accept the logic of his reasoning" indicate there is no further content dispute and this mediation can be concluded? - David Oberst 00:41, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I view the fact that you did not answer my questions, starting here, etc., coupled with several instances of sarcasm aimed at me to be poor treatment. BruceHallman 03:25, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello. I'm sorry if I sound disinterested Bruce, but could you provide me with the relevant diffs please? Maybe I've become insensitive to civility (perhaps the testy debating on my usertalk page, which is currently 116kb for nine days worth of messages, is bringing my civility standards down), but I didn't see anything which caught my eye immediately. Also, perhaps in regards to the first point, that is one of the reasons why we are here at mediation, but I presume the discussion would be on the userspace and user talk pages of the relevant users, which you could work out by trawling through the contributions of the respective users. As I have noted, there are a few editors sparring heavily on my talk page, so I'd prefer if we got down to business quickly. Thanks, Blnguyen | rant-line 03:41, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * To clarify, I'm referring to your indication on the main page that you will not proceed until you get a full apology. If that is the case, then we most likely will have a problem because it was mentioned earlier on the article talk page that if nothing gets started then an arbitration request will be lodged.


 * This would also be unfortunate because you would have to spend a while lodging a more precise and formal statement ARBCOM statement, and judging by the extremely abusive behaviour that lead to arbitration (ie, incessant multi-party editwarring for weeks, incessant heated debate with insults etc for weeks, people skirting and contravening user conduct personally continually) - I'm pretty sure that the ArbCom would strongly reject a request for arbitration and we'll end up back where we started, after spend a few hours writing 250 word statements with diffs and all for the ArbCom. For an example of an article arbitration, please see Talk:Rajput and Requests for arbitration/Rajput for some horrible viewing, and the kind of thing which leads to arbitration. Blnguyen | rant-line 04:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks Blnguyen for your volunteering to be a mediator, your work helps make Wikpedia great. Speaking for myself only, my request for mediation basically had two parts, the 'content dispute' part, which due to an explanation provided by Oberst yesterday, has now been resolved to my satisfaction.  The second part, about incivility, which I would like resolved before proceeding to resolve the content dispute is therefore presently moot.  I would prefer to waste no more of your time mediating a dispute which, as of yesterday, is simply about incivility between editors.    BruceHallman 14:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC)