Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Archives/4

Confused about who is to notify parties

At Wikipedia:Mediation Committee/Policy#What will happen when you ask for mediation?, it says:

"Once the request has been filed, the initiator is responsible for notifying the other parties of the request. More instructions on doing so are provided on the RfM page."..

But at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Guide#After filing, it says:

"Having filed your request, MediationBot1 should add it to Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Pending (history) within the hour; and a member of the committee should notify the other parties to the dispute of the request within a couple of days."

These appear to contradict each other. Should I notify the parties, or does the Committee do that? Thanks, Herostratus (talk) 16:17, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

In addition, I wonder what the definition of "parties" is. There are three classes of involved editors:

1. Editors involved in extensive back-and-forth on the subject
2. Editors who commented once, at the RfC or elsewhere
3. Editors who made a post while the subject was under discussion, but their post didn't really bear on the subject at hand.

I have included the first two classes as "parties", but not the third. I hope this is correct. (The third class of editors are listed in the mediation request, but commented out; if they should be included, they can be commented back in.) (This refers to Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Creampie (sexual act).) Herostratus (talk) 17:55, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I believe it is your job to notify the parties. Note however that (in my experience) the mediation committee will turn down the request if not all parties agree to participate. --JN466 06:28, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, I'll get right on it, and thanks for your reply. Herostratus (talk) 14:57, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

However, the statement "More instructions on doing so are provided on the RfM page" appears to false; if any such instructions exist they are well hidden. So I'm deleting that passage. If what you say is true, the passage "and a member of the committee should notify the other parties to the dispute of the request within a couple of days" should also be deleted; but since you only said "I believe", I guess I'll leave it for now. Herostratus (talk) 15:02, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Missing mediator

Mediator Wgfinley seems to have disappeared after accepting the task of mediating the Restoring Honor rally case. He hasn't made an edit to Wikipedia in more than three weeks, since shortly after noting on his user page that he is "Very overloaded at work..." — and I see he already has a second mediation case on his plate. Would it be possible to get a replacement mediator, or an interim mediator to nudge things along until Wgfinley returns? Xenophrenic (talk) 04:11, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I think at this point it is apparent that Wgfinley does not have enough time to devote to this case at present, so I'll try to have another mediator assigned to the case. Please stand by, and thank you for your patience until this point. Regards, AGK 18:47, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Will do, and thank you very much for your attention to the matter. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:08, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

We're still waiting for a new mediator in this case. Is there any new status? —UncleDouggie (talk) 07:30, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

'Requests for mediation/White Argentine': Party not accepted mediation within 7 days

"...after filing a request, every party must indicate his acceptance within seven days on the case page in order for the dispute to be eligible for mediation".

Since User:IANVS, one of the parties named, has not indicated his acceptance of mediation within the required period, can I assume that mediation on this topic will not take place?

Given that I consider the article is in breach of several core Wikipedia policies, I wish to proceed with alternate methods to rectify the situation, but I'd like confirmation first that I'm not acting prematurely. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:57, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I agreed with the mediation. Let's go with it. Salut, --IANVS (talk) 13:39, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

The request has been rejected for other reasons—which derive directly from the Committee's current workload. See Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/White Argentine. I would strongly encourage you to seek the assistance of the Mediation Cabal at this point. Regards, AGK 18:55, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Talk pages by size

Please see the new page Wikipedia:Database reports/Talk pages by size (to be updated weekly). This talk page ranks 17th, with 12689 kilobytes. Perhaps this will motivate greater efficiency in the use of kilobytes.
—Wavelength (talk) 21:53, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

What can we do to comply with the goal of "greater efficiency in the use of kilobytes", and why does it matter? Regards, AGK 18:54, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Homeopathy

Would someone just delete/reject this ASAP? Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Homeopathy It's just another flaming fork by an account created for only this page, the Rfm/Homeopathy page.[1] It deserves no more notice than the usual sock-puppet time wasting garbage found elsewhere, even this post is too much notice; but the page should not hang out for any length of time. Thanks. --Kleopatra (talk) 18:14, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I just found out the meaning of sock puppet and refute the allegation. A friend of mine who has been editing wikipedia told me to do what I've done, so please mediate. If that isn't possible, I will refer this to the arbitration committee.Xdjq (talk) 08:00, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Your friend here is doing you a disservice. Either they are blocked and thus using you as a meatpuppet (which is forbidden), or you are responding to canvassing, which is also a dubious matter. We don't accept RfM from newbies for which it is their first request. We let established users do it. One should have a vested interest in the subject in the context of editing here to deserve the right to start cases like this.

I vote for deleting it and also running a CU on this user as a possible sock. -- Brangifer (talk) 08:23, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Bot issue

I just noticed the mediation bot listed a bunch of rejected cases as unassigned. Just FYI. -- Lord Roem (talk) 16:17, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I just manually went into the template and fixed the errors. -- Lord Roem (talk) 17:41, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Dispute with a Wiki Editor!!

User talk:The Interior

The above editor is stalking the Wiki page I maintain and removing links posted by previous editors.

I would really like him or her to be refused access to my page, as his opinions are so rigid and differ so drastically from other bio pages. What he says is not allowed is clearly and most emphatically allowed on other pages and by previous editors connected to my page.

You can see his edits here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Prendergast&action=historysubmit&diff=415170673&oldid=415138251

The links he removed contain valuable information that is not avilable at the one remaining external link.

I would greatly appreaciate your assistance.

Thank you! Nell 21:26, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Video games developed in Japan

• The mediation request Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Video games developed in Japan (about pages Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Japan-related articles) and Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines) assigned to User:Anthony Appleyard on 24 Jan 2011 (being discussed in Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Video games developed in Japan#Should the romaji version of Japanese videogame names be included in Wikipedia articles? may have at last settled to a final state. But it has spawned a separate new discussion in Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Video games developed in Japan#Proposed changes to Template:Nihongo.

  In Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines the separate issues (so far discussed in edit comments) of "what is cruft/trivia and what is not?", and list versus prose format, have surfaced again, after having arisen from time to time as sidetracks in the about 524 kilobytes of sidetracky discussion since the "include romaji?" issue first arose at 05:06 on 2 July 2010.

  • Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:43, 12 April 2011 (UTC)