| Revision as of 23:37, 15 June 2007 editSean William (talk | contribs)6,648 edits I'll take this← Previous edit | Revision as of 23:40, 15 June 2007 edit undoDreamGuy (talk | contribs)33,601 edits →Administrative notesNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{Medcabstatus | {{Medcabstatus | ||
| <!-- Mediator, please change from new to open when accepted, to status closed when the case is closed. Remember to remove the mediation request message from the article talk page when closing. --> | <!-- Mediator, please change from new to open when accepted, to status closed when the case is closed. Remember to remove the mediation request message from the article talk page when closing. --> | ||
| |status = |
|status = closed | ||
| |article = | |article = | ||
| |requestor = ] 04:37, 15 June 2007 (UTC) | |requestor = ] 04:37, 15 June 2007 (UTC) | ||
| |parties = | |||
| |parties = ], ], ], ], ] | |||
| |mediators = | |||
| |mediators = ] ] | |||
| |comment = |
|comment = | ||
| }} | }} | ||
| <!-- The comment section above is used by mediators to briefly state the status of the case, which shows up on the case list. --> | <!-- The comment section above is used by mediators to briefly state the status of the case, which shows up on the case list. --> | ||
| Line 24: | Line 24: | ||
| This truly needs a neutral person; someone who has never touched this page (or possibly any of the other Fur pages, but that's a judgment call for the mediator) to come in and help us assess external content. This page does not need guidance as much as it needs someone with no vested interest to come in an weigh on the subject before this heads too far. I'm prepared to accept a decision either way, my concern is more with the edicts and comments that 'this is not up for discussion'; it's going to make a page that can be divisive become even moreso. | This truly needs a neutral person; someone who has never touched this page (or possibly any of the other Fur pages, but that's a judgment call for the mediator) to come in and help us assess external content. This page does not need guidance as much as it needs someone with no vested interest to come in an weigh on the subject before this heads too far. I'm prepared to accept a decision either way, my concern is more with the edicts and comments that 'this is not up for discussion'; it's going to make a page that can be divisive become even moreso. | ||
| === Mediator response === | === Mediator response === | ||
| I am willing to mediate this. Moving to the article's talk page to see if the parties accept me as a mediator. ] ] 23:37, 15 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| === Administrative notes === | === Administrative notes === | ||
| This got moved from "open cases" back to "looking for mediator" -- that's not correct. Mediation was rejected, because mediation in general is a very un-Misplaced Pages to do things, and it looks like some people are purposefully trying to go to mediation to try to bypass normal ways of dealing with a conflict. Furthermore, the conflict they have is with ] itself and not this article. A mediation case is incapable of invalidating the broad consensus already established there, so there's no way they can hope to use mediation to their advantage except to try to get a self-appointed mediator willing to ignore rules, much like the one who falsely declared himself moderator previously without gaining permission from all sides. There is no reasonable expectation for any good faith end result with this process. | |||
Revision as of 23:40, 15 June 2007
| Misplaced Pages Mediation Cabal | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Status | closed |
| Request date | Unknown |
| Requesting party | Unknown |
]]
Request Information
Who are the involved parties?
DreamGuy / Mermaid from the Baltic Sea, Bryan Derksen, NeoFreak, Thespian
What is the involved article(s)?
What's going on?
Dreamguy has very strong opinions that a link to 'WikiFur' - a Wikia wiki on the Furry and Therian Community should be removed. As such, he has been reverting any other editor who includes it. It is not an 'edit war' per se, but it's becoming problematic. Dreamguy has a confrontational attitude that is causing problems, though he absolutely seems to be of good intent. His most recent edit came with an comment that reads: OK, considering that the WP:EL guideline SPECIFICALLY SAYS NOT TO LINK TO COMPETING WIKIS this is not up for discussion). Problem is encountered because WP:EL is a guideline, and the guideline includes other wikis as, 'normally to be avoided' not *always* to be avoided. The WP:EL no longer refers to other wikis as 'comepting', and the guidelines on what makes a wiki acceptable: "Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors." Stability isn't an issue, as it is hosted on Wikia. It has existed for 2 years, and has about 100 editors, half of whom have been active in the last 20 days. This then becomes a question of 'does this prove stability? what does?'
More to the point, though, the discussion about this has become rather vehement on Dreamguy's side, with comments sounding more like edicts, and his references to guidelines as if they are set in stone policies. Because the page is slightly obscure and quite vulnerable to fancruft (in point, I do believe that most external links added to this page have been rightfully removed, but a look through the edits will find NeoFreak and I do that the most often), and we both think the WikiFur entry should stay), the issue becomes that Dreamguy does not seem to be working with the other editors, and it's causing tensions for both him and other editors of the page.
What would you like to change about that?
This truly needs a neutral person; someone who has never touched this page (or possibly any of the other Fur pages, but that's a judgment call for the mediator) to come in and help us assess external content. This page does not need guidance as much as it needs someone with no vested interest to come in an weigh on the subject before this heads too far. I'm prepared to accept a decision either way, my concern is more with the edicts and comments that 'this is not up for discussion'; it's going to make a page that can be divisive become even moreso.
Mediator response
Administrative notes
This got moved from "open cases" back to "looking for mediator" -- that's not correct. Mediation was rejected, because mediation in general is a very un-Misplaced Pages to do things, and it looks like some people are purposefully trying to go to mediation to try to bypass normal ways of dealing with a conflict. Furthermore, the conflict they have is with WP:EL itself and not this article. A mediation case is incapable of invalidating the broad consensus already established there, so there's no way they can hope to use mediation to their advantage except to try to get a self-appointed mediator willing to ignore rules, much like the one who falsely declared himself moderator previously without gaining permission from all sides. There is no reasonable expectation for any good faith end result with this process.