Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-11-13 Space music

Wikipedia Mediation Cabal
Wikipedia Mediation Cabal
Article	Space music
Status	Closed
Request date	01:48, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Requesting party	Unknown
Parties involved	Milomedes (talk · contribs)/Semitransgenic (talk · contribs)/Gene Poole (talk · contribs)
Mediator(s)	roux
Comment	Closed due to untrue perceptions held by one participant about my ability to mediate a case. Other parties have elected to pursue other forms of dispute resolution.

[[Category:Wikipedia Medcab closed cases|Space music]][[Category:Wikipedia medcab maintenance|Space music]]

Note: Please limit posts to this page to brief statements about the nature of the dispute until a volunteer adopts the case. Keep ongoing discussions about the topic to the appropriate talk page(s), but feel free to provide links to the talk page(s) where discussion has happened (and may be ongoing) for the convenience of the informal mediator and other parties. This will help keep discussion from fragmenting out across more pages and make it easier for a volunteer to review the case. Thanks!

Request details

Who are the involved parties?

Milomedes (talk · contribs) Semitransgenic (talk · contribs) Gene Poole (talk · contribs)

What's going on?

Content-related dispute extending over nearly 2 years with intermittent flare-ups.

WP:OWN, WP:OR, WP:UNDUE and WP:SYN have been repeatedly raised as concerns with respect to the article, by numerous editors, including Gene Poole (talk · contribs), Gardener_of_Geda (talk · contribs), Viriditas (talk · contribs) and Semitransgenic (talk · contribs).

All attempts at addressing - or even merely discussing - these concerns via talk page discussion and mediation by uninvolved third parties have failed.

This is largely attributable to obstruction - frequently expressed in the form of high level incivility by one party in particular in the first instance, and from other involved parties provoked into posting occasional intemperate responses.

semitransgenic tagged the article 1, and placed a comment regarding this action 2 in an attempt to direct proceedings towards a detailed discussion of content, citations, and sources; rather than entering a WP:OR centered debate. The talk archives 1, 2 evidence a general lack of appreciation for guidelines relating to original research. Milomedes seems reluctant to address concerns regarding WP:OR and associated issues. This appears to be a trend and may be indicative of WP:OWN see comments from February 2007. Semitransgenic (talk) 02:51, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Latest talk page contribution by Milo here

What would you like to change about that?

Incivility must cease. Evasion, filibustering and obstruction must cease. Assumptions of bad faith must cease. Personal attacks must cease. Discussions must focus solely on content and WP policy, and editors must express their opinions using concise, unambiguous terminology.

semitransgenic would like to see all indisputable WP:OR material excised, would like to conduct fact checking on all existing citations, and would like to establish whether or not primary source statements attributable to the website of a commercial site can be used to underpin a number of the dubious assertions put forth in the article. A WP:RFC/U for Milo may also be worthwhile. Semitransgenic (talk) 03:32, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mediator notes

Hi. I have opened this case. //roux 09:59, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have a few ground rules when I mediate a case. These are intended to ensure that we focus only on content issues. Behavioural issues, if any, can be addressed after the content concerns have been dealt with. They may seem a bit draconian, but they serve a purpose: they let us focus on opinions about content, which is the point of all MedCab cases. Please note that I hold myself to the same rules when mediating a case, and I guarantee that everyone involved will be given a chance to be heard and understood.

I would also like to note that I do not read any of the history involved before taking on a case, to make sure that I don't prejudice myself one way or the other. My job here is to help everyone involved to talk to each other thoughtfully and work together towards a resolution. So, the rules:

I will create sections for each party to comment in. Please address all your comments to me, and not to the other participants.
Please keep your statements at 200 words or less, unless asked otherwise.
Please keep all comments focused on facts, and not on the past, present, or future behaviour of any other users
All participants are asked to refrain from any editing of the disputed article, the disputed article's talk page, or each other's talk pages until the case is concluded. Any vandalism to the article will be caught by vandalism patrollers, so don't worry about that either.
I reserve the right to edit any comments or statements which don't fit within these guidelines.
MedCab is not a formal part of the dispute resolution process, and cannot provide binding sanctions. Nevertheless, I ask that everyone involved agree to:

Abide by the outcome of this case
Immediately move to the next phase of dispute resolution if you are unable to agree with the final outcome

Please sign just your username below, with four tildes (~~~~) to indicate your agreement with the ground rules and your participation in the case.

Semitransgenic: Semitransgenic (talk) 20:49, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Gene Poole: Accept. --Gene_poole (talk) 12:25, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Milomedes: Decline; this mediator has too much baggage. Milo 12:00, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note to Gene Poole

I would greatly appreciate it if you would reword your request a little bit to be a bit more neutral. Do you think you can do that for me? //roux

Done. --Gene_poole (talk) 10:07, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note to Milomedes

Personal attacks are not acceptable in any venue on Wikipedia. This goes double when it is someone attempting to help you resolve a dispute. You can decline to participate, but citing reasons like that is not acceptable. Please redact. //roux 12:49, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your behavior record follows you. Citing a record is perfectly acceptable as evidence of their judgment when someone offers to mediate.

There is no WP:NPA here. You've been at Wikipedia for only six months, and shouldn't be trying to mediate when you don't yet understand basic policy. Consider this to be part of your WP education:

WP:NPA#Initial options:

"Personal attacks do not include civil language used to describe an editor's actions, and when made without involving their personal character, should not be construed as personal attacks,..."

WP:NPA#Personal attacks:

"Evidence often takes the form of diffs and links presented on wiki."

Milo 22:19, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is generally considered unwise to pass judgement when one is unaware of the details. Seeing as you are very clearly not at all familiar with what has actually happened, I'll dismiss your comments for what they are. In any case, this case is closed and I have advised Semitransgenic to pursue other forms of dispute resolution. //roux 00:35, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Administrative notes

Discussion

Roux, I wish to state that if Milomedes is not interested in engaging in this process that I would like to withdraw and proceed directly with WP:RFC/U Semitransgenic (talk) 20:55, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm probably going to be closing this case as, reading between the lines, it looks like you and Gene Poole are largely in agreement? If so, it would probably be a bit silly to try and mediate between you two... I suggest that you pursue whatever form of DR you feel is most relevant to the situation, or ask for another mediator to step in. I can recommend Mayalld, but I don't know what his schedule is like. //roux 21:03, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed re:Gene. I propose that WP:RFC/U is now an appropriate way to proceed. Semitransgenic (talk) 22:18, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Mediation can only work if all parties show willingness to participate in the process. WP:RFC/U is now the appropriate course of action. --Gene_poole (talk) 22:47, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]