Misplaced Pages talk:Mediation Cabal/2007 Archive 4

< Misplaced Pages talk:Mediation Cabal

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by PhilKnight (talk | contribs) at 13:20, 8 December 2007 (archive thread). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 13:20, 8 December 2007 by PhilKnight (talk | contribs) (archive thread)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

This is an archive of past discussions on Misplaced Pages:Mediation Cabal. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

March Days Mediation Request

After several months of calm, there is a new edit conflict brewing on this page. I think an involvement of a 3rd party mediator at Talk:March Days, which was an experience on this page before, would be very helpful to bring about a consensus. Thanks. Atabek 04:29, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Several articles

If the dispute affects several articles, how would I go about steps 2 and 3. The dispute is between me (primarily) and User:Bandurist (primarily), and the affected articles are:

Kuban Cossacks
Ukrainians in Kuban
Balachka
and probably more related directly or indirectly this way or the other such as Kuban Cossack Chorus, Kuban People's Republic, Ukrainian language and so on.

The idea is that just how Russian or Ukrainian is that region, and the people, to whom I belong to are. Most of the research originating from Russia, including the Kuban themselves, as well census figures show clear support for the former, but Bandurist has been arguing, using semi-OR methods and some revisionist semi-nationalist Ukrainian sources of supporting the latter. After some diplomacy attempts I raised the case to WP:AN/I due to Bandurists violations of WP:OWN and WP:NPOV.

The basic history is that after the Zaporozhian Host was dissolved by Catherine II of Russia in 1775 (long before Ukrainians were considered a separate nation), most Cossacks chose to retain service and the Black Sea Cossack Host was formed. In 1792 the recieved a direct permission from the Empress to move the Kuban land of Russia. That said, makes many nationalist Ukrainians believe that the modern Kuban Cossacks are ethnically Ukrainians, it's like saying that Black Jamaicans are Sierra Lenonians. Now whilst they are not entirely wrong, whoever one cannot consider the residents of Massachussets to be ethnically British, just because originally they were settled by the English settlers. However that is the Point of View that Bandurist is actively pushing. --Kuban Cossack 12:35, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Good question! This situation is actually quite common, so I added it to our step II. Has anyone contested the article name "Kuban Cossacks"? If not then I'd just add the template first there, and then copy it to the other talk pages. The rest of your message here seems like a good candidate for the "What's going on" section. — Sebastian 00:53, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Preconditions

I just learned the hard way that it is pointless to even start a mediation if the requestor is not willing to cooperate with the other party in order to reach a solution. In my impression, that is the most important precondition. I think this is more important than some of the other points listed under "preconditions". I just replaced the fourfold mention of "need discussion" with the precondition "You must have have been following Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution", because that condition belongs there and is much better described there.

I would also like to make the following changes:

Cut "If you need outside opinions, you can ...". This is already covered in WP:DR
Replace the three repetitions of "Mediation is purely voluntary" with: "Mediation only works when all parties cooperate. Therefore, you need to be willing to cooperate, and you need to write your case in such a way that makes it easy for the other party to cooperate, too.
Cut "All parties must be willing to assume good faith." There are several parts of this precondition:
- "The other side must be willing to AGF": How is the requestor supposed to know what the other side is willing to assume?
- "You must be willing to AGF": This is covered by the condition "you must be willing to cooperate". Moreover, who would not say "I'm willing"? (That reminds me of the form foreigners have to fill out on entering the US: "Check here if you enter this country if you plan to commit terrorism".)
- I would not want to reduce it to "You must AGF", either: Often, requestors may be willing to cooperate, but they just can't see for the life of them any good faith explanations for the other party's actions. I don't see why we would want to exclude such cases; personally, I find these cases most rewarding; I find it is worth our best effort to help such people see a way out of their dilemma.

Are there any objections? — Sebastian 02:25, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Done. I also added "Don't worry if the other side is not cooperating yet; mediators will help you with that", because I feel that's precisely our task; we can't shy away from those cases! — Sebastian 05:30, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

MedCab coordination gone wrong

I believe the purpose of MedCab is to facilitate mediation. It is the duty of a MedCab coordinator to assist and mentor mediators, especially new ones. User:Addhoc abandoned this duty by repeatedly attacking a well-intended mediator with unwarranted accusations on Misplaced Pages:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-11-07 Sterling Management Systems.

In the last 8 days, I have tried to talk with User:Addhoc about this in numerous e-mails, but unfortunately did not effect any change in this inappropriate behavior. Sadly, I therefore need to report this failure here. I am especially appalled at this since the mediator, User:Leonmon, has done an excellent, professional job in preparing questions and suggestions to parties, and I can not understand why a MedCab coordinator would want to risk loosing such a dedicated mediator. I also think it hurts MedCab if one coordinator is not open to the concerns of another coordinator. — Sebastian 21:18, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Sebastian, for the record, Leonmon has done two mediations on Misplaced Pages. You don't seem to grok that during Leonmon's period of absense, User:Misou disrupted the mediation with repeated incivility. That is the "dagger in the chest". That is what destroyed the mediation. Am I going to have to repeat that to you again?--Fahrenheit451 23:46, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Timeline

05:14, November 18: Mediator announces absence for “couple days” because of an office move
19:37, November 21: User:Fahrenheit451 complains that “Leonmon abandoned mediation”.
20:27, November 21: Sebastian explains that an absence of a few days is normal here. (See discussion at User talk:SebastianHelm#Comment on User:Leonmon. There was also an e-mail discussion which I will be happy to disclose if User:Fahrenheit451 has no objection.) In fact, it is not even normal, but it is very minor compared to User:Addhoc’s practice of leaving cases for much longer periods of time, as e.g. in Misplaced Pages:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-06-13 Sardaka, where ey left the parties discussing alone for five weeks (from June 13 to July 19) without any explanation or notice on the case page.
SebastianHelm, our email exchange was private. You do not have my permission to reveal any of my emails.--Fahrenheit451 22:54, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Of course, that's why I'm asking. Thank you for your reply. — Sebastian 23:04, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
23:41, November 21: Sebastian notifies the mediator on talk page about the discussion.
03:54, November 22: Mediator replies by explaining the situation (both on the case page and on User talk:SebastianHelm#Comment on User:Leonmon.)
17:53, November 23: User:Addhoc resets the project without explanation in the edit summary
18:36, November 23: User:Addhoc kicks the mediator out of the mediation without explanation in the edit summary

Addhoc removed Leonmon's name from the info box. There was no documentation that he "kicked" Leonmon off the case, so that is a false accusation.--Fahrenheit451 23:57, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

19:12, November 23: User:Addhoc reopens the case without explanation in the edit summary
20:10, November 23: User:Stan En leaves the mediation with the comment “no more interest in this "kindergarden"”. This is directly following User:Addhoc’s unexplained changes to the case~~, but it is unclear whether these changes are what triggered User:Stan En's step.~~
Omitted data:StanEn made a couple statements as to why he left that were quite clear and Addhoc actions were not mentioned or alluded to.--Fahrenheit451 23:01, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
07:04, November 26: Mediator posts a a professional list of pertinent questions and suggestions
21:23, November 27: User:Fahrenheit451 leaves the mediation without addressing any of the mediator’s questions.

Omitted data:Fahrenheit451 had already informed SebastianHelm that the mediator should be replaced several times prior to asking the mediation be terminated.--Fahrenheit451 22:58, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Findings according to User:SebastianHelm

The accusation “abandoned” is patently inappropriate: User:Fahrenheit451 repeated this accususation several times since ey brought it up on User talk:SebastianHelm#Comment on User:Leonmon, despite my explanations there. It appears User:Addhoc is copying User:Fahrenheit451’s groundless accusation verbatim without checking the facts. I had pointed User:Addhoc to that discussion by e-mail last week, so User:Addhoc had the occasion to inform emself that it was inappropriate back then already, especially since I reminded User:Addhoc of the Sardaka case. This term has become even more inappropriate when the mediator replied a few hours later, and patently inappropriate after the mediator provided a professional list of pertinent questions and compromise suggestions.
The accusation “abandoned” is disingenuous: It is obviously disingenuous for User:Addhoc to accuse a new mediator of abandoning a case when an announced absence is overstayed by a day or two, while User:Addhoc emself stays away many weeks on unexplained absence, leaving parties alone with their discusssion. We don’t have a “quod licet Iovi, non licet bovi” standard here.; Sebastian, please define your words carefully. I think you have wrongfully hurled an accusation at Addhoc. While Leonmon did not desert the case, he did give up control of the mediation to a disruptive user. Also, you are comparing two entirely different circumstances of mediation which is a fallacy.--Fahrenheit451 23:51, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
The accusation “ didn't make any effort to mediate the discussion” is patently wrong: In fact, between User:Addhoc’s unexplained changes to the case and User:Fahrenheit451’s leaving the project, the mediator was the only one contributing to the case page.
User:Fahrenheit451 abandoned the project: Instead of replying to any of the questions, User:Fahrenheit451's first action on this page was to leave the mediation.

Falsehood:Fahrenheit451's first actions were to get a response from Leonmon when User:Misou was repeatedly uncivil, then remedy the mediator's absense by getting a substitute mediator.--Fahrenheit451 23:04, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Proposed resolution

In order to solve this amicably, I propose the following actions:

Both User:Fahrenheit451 and User:Addhoc to publicly apologize to User:Leonmon for their unwarranted and unfounded accusations.
User:Fahrenheit451 to explain why ey left the project after the mediator posted the questions and proposals.
User:Addhoc to explain why ey repeated User:Fahrenheit451’s false accusations without checking the facts.

— Sebastian 21:24, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

For the sake of MedCab, I also would like the two coordinators to commit to take each other's concerns seriously and to respond to e-mails quickly. Moreover, I would like to remind that, in a mail about a week ago, I had proposed two possible ways to prevent situations like this from happening:

I gave User:Addhoc my phone number because, in my experience, a combination of e-mail and phone works best in resolving misunderstandings. I am aware that User:Addhoc lives on a different continent, but I am willing to make long distance phone calls. But for that, I would of course need User:Addhoc's number.
I proposed to ask a mutual friend to mediate between us, and did not receive a response to that.

Please, Addhoc, respond to my requests. MedCab works best when the coordinators coordinate their work. — Sebastian 21:48, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

"20:10, November 23: User:Stan En leaves the mediation with the comment “no more interest in this "kindergarden"”. This is directly following User:Addhoc’s unexplained changes to the case, but it is unclear whether these changes are what triggered User:Stan En's step." Again, as I already explained ! I did not leave due to any mediator's action;neither Addhoc's nor Leonmen's! My edit comment(kindergarden) was inappropriate and I apologize for that. I mainly contributed on the discussion page of the mediation project(SMS) and didn't even notice the changes made by Addhoc. -- Stan_talk 22:23, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. I struck the passage from "but it is unclear ..." on. — Sebastian 23:12, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for striking out the passage but now the paragrapph suggests even more that comments/edits from Addhoc caused the step I took. ): Striking it completly might be more appropriate since its redundant for this dispute but it suggests the opposite. -- Stan_talk 23:58, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

SebastianHelm knows very well why I left the mediation and I repeatedly advised him I would if the mediator did not change in the case.--Fahrenheit451 22:50, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

No, User:Fahrenheit451, I do not know why you left the mediation. Your repeated accusation that the mediator "abandoned" the case can not be a reason since it is not supported by facts, as clearly evident from items #10 and 11 in the timeline above. I asked you in several e-mails if you had any other reason, but you refused to provide any. I will respect your wish to keep our conversation private and not quote you, but I have to ask you to disclose here in public your reasons for (1) asking the mediator to close the case and (2) leaving the case. — Sebastian 23:09, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

User:SebastianHelm, perhaps we are operating off of different definitions of "Abandon". The one I use is: "To give up to another's control or mercy". You may be thinking in terms of "forsake or desert". Indeed, User:Misou disrupted the mediation with repeated incivility. By Leonmon not intervening, he effectively gave up the mediation to another's control. No evidence Leonmon deserted the mediation, but perhaps we are using the same word for different actions.--Fahrenheit451 23:25, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Counter proposed resolution

In order to resolve this justly, I propose the following actions:

SebastianHelm publicly apologize to User:Addhoc for false accusations of abandoning the coordination process.
SebastianHelm explain publicly why he distorted the facts of this mediation and turned a simple matter of substituting the mediator into what appears to be a persecution of User:Addhoc.--Fahrenheit451 22:50, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I did not accuse "User:Addhoc ... of abandoning the coordination process" but I stated that ey abandoned eir duty as a MedCab coordinator to help mediators. Maybe the word "abandoned" was not the best choice, and I herewith change that to "neglected". Please provide references for your accusation of distortion of facts. Please also provide your reason for your demand for "substituting the mediator". — Sebastian 23:28, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

"I did not accuse "User:Addhoc ... of abandoning the coordination process" but I stated that ey abandoned eir duty as a MedCab coordinator to help mediators." I would say both subjects are tantamount. I think you are quibbling. My evidence for distortion of facts is above under omitted data and falsehood.--Fahrenheit451 23:39, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Fahrenheit451 and Stan, thanks for your comments. The last comment by Leonmon on the case page was to thank me for offering advice, and in this context, I'm not sure continuing this discussion is necessary. Addhoc 00:46, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

MedCab coordination gone wrong

The comments in the box below were written by User:SebastianHelm and solely represent his opinions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fahrenheit451 (talk • contribs) 04:06, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

The following text has been provided by uninvolved Mediation Cabal coordinator. Please do not modify it, unless you are an uninvolved Mediation Cabal coordinator. Subsequent comments should be made in the #Discussion section below.

Overview

An important purpose of Mediation Cabal is to facilitate mediation. It is the duty of a MedCab coordinator to assist and mentor mediators, especially new ones.

User:Addhoc neglected this duty by repeatedly attacking a well-intended mediator with unwarranted accusations on Misplaced Pages:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-11-07 Sterling Management Systems.

From November 22 till November 30, Mediation Cabal coordinator SebastianHelm has tried to talk with Mediation Cabal coordinator Addhoc about this in numerous e-mails, but unfortunately did not effect any change in this inappropriate behavior. Sadly, SebastianHelm therefore needs to report this failure here. This is especially appalling since the mediator, User:Leonmon, has done an excellent, professional job in preparing questions and suggestions to parties, and Mediation Cabal has no interest in loosing such a dedicated mediator. Moreover, it hurts Mediation Cabal if one coordinator is not open to the concerns of another coordinator.

For the Mediation Cabal — Sebastian 21:18, 30 November 2007 (UTC), amended 05:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Timeline

05:14, November 18: Mediator announces absence for “couple days” because of an office move
19:37, November 21: User:Fahrenheit451 complains that “Leonmon abandoned mediation”.
20:27, November 21: Sebastian explains that an absence of a few days is normal here. (See discussion at User talk:SebastianHelm#Comment on User:Leonmon. There was also an e-mail discussion which I will be happy to disclose if User:Fahrenheit451 has no objection.) In fact, it is not even normal, but it is very minor compared to User:Addhoc’s practice of leaving cases for much longer periods of time, as e.g. in Misplaced Pages:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-06-13 Sardaka, where ey left the parties discussing alone for five weeks (from June 13 to July 19) without any explanation or notice on the case page.
23:41, November 21: Sebastian notifies the mediator on talk page about the discussion.
03:54, November 22: Mediator replies by explaining the situation (both on the case page and on User talk:SebastianHelm#Comment on User:Leonmon.)
17:53, November 23: User:Addhoc resets the project without explanation in the edit summary
18:36, November 23: User:Addhoc kicks the mediator out of the mediation without explanation in the edit summary
19:12, November 23: User:Addhoc reopens the case without explanation in the edit summary
07:04, November 26: Mediator posts a a professional list of pertinent questions and suggestions
21:23, November 27: User:Fahrenheit451 leaves the mediation without addressing any of the mediator’s questions.

Findings of fact

The accusation “abandoned” is patently inappropriate: User:Fahrenheit451 repeated this accususation several times since ey brought it up on User talk:SebastianHelm#Comment on User:Leonmon, despite my explanations there. It appears User:Addhoc is copying User:Fahrenheit451’s groundless accusation verbatim without checking the facts. I had pointed User:Addhoc to that discussion by e-mail last week, so User:Addhoc had the occasion to inform emself that it was inappropriate back then already, especially since I reminded User:Addhoc of the Sardaka case. This term has become even more inappropriate when the mediator replied a few hours later, and patently inappropriate after the mediator provided a professional list of pertinent questions and compromise suggestions.
The accusation “abandoned” is disingenuous: It is obviously disingenuous for User:Addhoc to accuse a new mediator of abandoning a case when an announced absence is overstayed by a day or two, while User:Addhoc emself stays away many weeks on unexplained absence, leaving parties alone with their discusssion. We don’t have a “quod licet Iovi, non licet bovi” standard here.
The accusation “ didn't make any effort to mediate the discussion” is patently wrong: In fact, between User:Addhoc’s unexplained changes to the case and User:Fahrenheit451’s leaving the project, the mediator was the only one contributing to the case page.
User:Fahrenheit451 abandoned the project: Instead of replying to any of the questions, User:Fahrenheit451's first action on this page was to leave the mediation.

Proposed resolution

In order to solve this amicably, I propose the following actions:

Both User:Fahrenheit451 and User:Addhoc to publicly apologize to User:Leonmon for their unwarranted and unfounded accusations.
User:Fahrenheit451 to explain why ey left the project after the mediator posted the questions and proposals.
User:Addhoc to explain why ey repeated User:Fahrenheit451’s false accusations without checking the facts.

— Sebastian 21:24, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

The above text has been provided by uninvolved Mediation Cabal coordinator. Please do not modify it, unless you are an uninvolved Mediation Cabal coordinator. Subsequent comments should be made below.

I gave User:Addhoc my phone number because, in my experience, a combination of e-mail and phone works best in resolving misunderstandings. I am aware that User:Addhoc lives on a different continent, but I am willing to make long distance phone calls. But for that, I would of course need User:Addhoc's number.
I proposed to ask a mutual friend to mediate between us, and did not receive a response to that.

Please, Addhoc, respond to my requests. MedCab works best when the coordinators coordinate their work. — Sebastian 21:48, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Administrative notice

Because of persistent disruption, in particular of the numbered list that destroyed the numbering, the sections that have been prepared by the uninvolved Mediation Cabal coordinator have been marked with a green background to prevent this from happening again. — Sebastian 05:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Re:20:10, November 23

Thank you for the clarification. I struck the passage from "but it is unclear ..." on. — Sebastian 23:12, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

You are right, it isn't that important and distracts from the issue. I will remove it. — Sebastian 06:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Why User:Fahrenheit451 left the mediation

SebastianHelm knows very well why I left the mediation and I repeatedly advised him I would if the mediator did not change in the case.--Fahrenheit451 22:50, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

No, User:Fahrenheit451, I do not know why you left the mediation. Your repeated accusation that the mediator "abandoned" the case can not be a reason since it is not supported by facts, as clearly evident from items #9 and 10 in the timeline above. I asked you in several e-mails if you had any other reason, but you refused to provide any. I will respect your wish to keep our conversation private and not quote you, but I have to ask you to disclose here in public your reasons for (1) asking the mediator to close the case and (2) leaving the case. — Sebastian 23:09, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Leonmon returned to the case on November 22 and called for civility. Please explain why you left the case 5 (five!) days later. — Sebastian 06:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Because I considered the mediation tainted after Misou's unrestrained incivility. I edited the page to withdraw some time after I decided to withdraw.--Fahrenheit451 (talk) 03:30, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Definitions of "Abandon"

Thank you for pointing that out. All my dictionary definitions of "to abandon" imply permanence. Would you be willing to change that word to a word that doesn't imply permanence? — Sebastian 05:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, some of my definitions imply permanence and others do not. A more accurate statement would be: Leonmon, because of his absense, temporarily gave up control of the mediation to an uncivil, disruptive user."--Fahrenheit451 (talk) 05:20, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Counter proposed resolution

In order to resolve this justly, I propose the following actions:

SebastianHelm publicly apologize to User:Addhoc for false accusations of abandoning the coordination process.
SebastianHelm explain publicly why he distorted the facts of this mediation and turned a simple matter of substituting the mediator into what appears to be a persecution of User:Addhoc.--Fahrenheit451 22:50, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

The graciousness of Leonmon’s answer reflects well on Leonmon’s desire to even learn from inappropriate accusations, not on the validity of your accusations. Your accusations are still unfounded and hurt Mediation Cabal, as described in detail above.

For the Mediation Cabal, — Sebastian 05:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: 20:27, November 21 (Privacy of e-mail)

SebastianHelm, our email exchange was private. You do not have my permission to reveal any of my emails.--Fahrenheit451 22:54, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Of course, that's why I'm asking. Thank you for your reply. — Sebastian 23:04, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: 18:36, November 23

Addhoc removed Leonmon's name from the info box. There was no documentation that he "kicked" Leonmon off the case, so that is a false accusation.--Fahrenheit451 23:57, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: 20:10, November 23

Omitted data:StanEn made a couple statements as to why he left that were quite clear and Addhoc actions were not mentioned or alluded to.--Fahrenheit451 23:01, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing this out; this entry has been changed. — Sebastian 05:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: 21:23, November 27

For the reason to leave the mediation, see section #Why User:Fahrenheit451 left the mediation above.

Please explain why you feel that the mediator should be replaced. — Sebastian 05:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I already did in a private email to you. Please review it if you still have it.--Fahrenheit451 (talk) 03:32, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: The accusation “abandoned” is disingenuous

Sebastian, please define your words carefully. I think you have wrongfully hurled an accusation at Addhoc. While Leonmon did not desert the case, he did give up control of the mediation to a disruptive user. Also, you are comparing two entirely different circumstances of mediation which is a fallacy.--Fahrenheit451 23:51, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

See section #Definitions of "Abandon" above. — Sebastian 05:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: User:Fahrenheit451 abandoned the project

The finding of fact states "User:Fahrenheit451's first action on this page was to leave the mediation". The statement makes no claims about actions outside of this page. If you feel it is relevant, please provide a WP:DIFF. — Sebastian 05:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Sebastian, you know as well as I what my actions on that page were as the full history is here: If you want to see diffs, you go ahead and look for them. You can spend your time on this exercise all you want to. --Fahrenheit451 (talk) 03:40, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Sebastian, one other point that you should be aware of here as much as anyone: MedCab is voluntary. Any participant in a dispute can join or leave on their own volition for any reason. I left because User:Misou was allowed to disrupt the mediation with repeated uncivil remarks. I left it with notification to you beforehand. I think you should retract the false remark about my "abandonment" when as a voluntary participant, such an epithet is entirely irrelevant anyway.--Fahrenheit451 (talk) 17:54, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: Addhoc

Sebastian has referred to my case, re Adhoc as a mediator, so I might as well outline what happened in case it is of any help to anyone.

I was having issues with TheRingess, and was advised by Buddipriya to go to MedCab. I did so and Addhoc volunteered to mediate.

June 13th: The case opened. TheRingess made her statement and I made mine, outlining three issues that were of concern to me.

21st July: Addhoc made a comment regarding one of the issues, specifically the least important one.

2nd August: Addhoc made a comment about users exercising editorial judgment, which again touched on the least important of the three issues. I did not take this as his "verdict" because it made no reference to the main issues.

Circa 31st August: Having waited for ten weeks, I asked Addhoc if the above comment was actually his "verdict". He seemed to have no idea what I was talking about and said that it looked like I should have gone to Arbitration instead of MedCab, because MedCab does not handle disputes about user conduct. I had wasted ten weeks.

Details are on:Misplaced Pages:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2007-06-13_Sardaka

Sardaka 08:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I can see neither the word "verdict" nor the word "arbitration" anywhere on Misplaced Pages:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2007-06-13_Sardaka. When and where did Addhoc say that? The best way to source this is by using WP:DIFFs. — Sebastian 09:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Addhoc

Sebastian, if you honestly believe that I have acted inappropriately, then you should file a request for comment. Otherwise, I suggest this entire thread is archived. Addhoc 13:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply! You have a point - I didn't make it clear why this is not an option. RfC is there for policy violations. But the Mediation Cabal is not (and, according to our project page, never will be) Misplaced Pages policy. So, there simply is no policy that says you can't hurt Mediation Cabal, even if you are a Mediation Cabal coordinator. Moreover, angry as I may be, I don't want your hands slapped. I simply want us to function as a team. — Sebastian 16:56, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Really, Sebastian? I don't see your crusade here to conduce to teamwork whatsoever. What I see your actions doing is tying up a few productive editors into your own wrong minded inquest. --Fahrenheit451 (talk) 04:31, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree - this exercise isn't helpful. Addhoc (talk) 11:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll archive the page if there are no objections. Addhoc (talk) 15:49, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I object at this point. Sebastian needs to remove the opinions in the colored box that he considers to be facts and "findings".--Fahrenheit451 (talk) 02:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll be talking with both Addhoc and Sebastian. --Kim Bruning (talk) 04:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

The cavalry. Late, as always.

Sent mail to Addhoc and Sebastian. --Kim Bruning (talk) 02:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)