| Revision as of 06:26, 15 March 2009 editTealwisp (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,338 edits we're on hold, I'll let you know when we're back on← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 06:13, 30 April 2009 edit undoSteven Crossin (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users39,753 editsm moved Misplaced Pages talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-03/Aspartame controversy to Misplaced Pages talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-03-12/Aspartame controversy |
| (No difference) | |
Latest revision as of 06:13, 30 April 2009
This dispute originated at Talk:Aspartame controversy#Proposal to work for consensus on purpose/focus of this article
Misplaced Pages talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-03/Aspartame controversy/Archive 1
Hello, everyone, I'll be mediating this issue. To start, I'd like a summary of what each side proposes/believes, and I'd like an explanation of why people are talking about sockpuppets. Have they been a problem?
Furthermore, I'd like to lay some ground rules:
- Assume good faith
- Be civil
- Focus on the issue at hand, not on whomever brought it up
- Be constructive; don't post unless you want to contribute to discussion
- Any accusations of sockpuppetry against those who have been proven not to be puppets or puppeteers may be considered personal attacks
We are in "timeout" for a while. It will end once everyone has cooled down a bit, and then we can get back to establishing consensus on where the article is headed. I suggest that everyone go from this proposal. Consider its merits, its lack thereof, its applicability, whatever. Just stay on topic. Tealwisp (talk) 06:26, 15 March 2009 (UTC)