Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/2012 Archive 1

New Issue: Fluoride

Tried you guys on IRC but nobody's there. This is a request for mediation on Fluoride and Hexafluorosilicic_acid topics with various editors. I got edit-warred on both topics, so stopped editing and switched to commenting on Talk:Fluoride, after which I was edit-blocked for an unknown reason. After my edit privileges were restored, I resumed discussion there, only to get more illogical arguments and fallacies in reply (e.g. saying that I'm a single-issue editor, conspiracy theorist, etc). Most recently, my comments on Talk page were deleted. I find this to be unacceptable. Censored discussion is not discussion at all. 69.105.232.74 (talk) 19:33, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I think a good first step here is for everyone involved to cool their heads. Then, maybe open a RfC (Request for Comment) for larger community input on the dispute, or alternatively, request a third opinion. If whatever issue still remains, then consider filing a MedCab case. The instructions and pre-made form can be found on our main page at WP:MEDCAB. Hope everything can be resolved. Cheers, Lord Roem (talk) 20:41, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Lord Roem that some other form of dispute resolution must be used first. If the time does come to make a mediation request, please use the form provided on the main page of this project. Cases will not ordinarily be opened from requests made on this page. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 03:52, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

My two cents

Hello mediators! I just want to bring to everyone's attention the String theory mediation. It appears that the mediator concluded the case in a final "decision". He says that the parties accepted it(see here), but I am generally concerned with such a manner of handling a case. It may be expedient do to so (issue a ruling), but we need to aim to allow all parties to resolve it on their own, with our help and guidance but not binding determinations. A pure content-dispute handled in such a way only stands on parties' acceptance of a decision, not on their mutual compromising and common agreement. Thus, the foundation of civility is not deep.

Let's make sure for future cases, we follow a different path. Just my two cents, Lord Roem (talk) 20:46, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, we did notice this case but decided that it would cause more hassle to intervene. It's something we definitely considered though, and I think that keeping a closer eye on cases may be the way to prevent this from happening in future. While MedCab is informal and mediators are generally free to choose their own methods of mediating, it must still fit within the general purpose of mediation, something I don't think this case did. That said, removing a mediator from a case is an extreme measure and we didn't feel it appropriate in this situation. Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 21:15, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I've been sorely tempted to step in and tweak somebody else's comments - but openly disagreeing with a mediator would rather undermine the process. Now, though, the case has been declared "closed"; that might not be black-and-white, but if the parties to the mediation go along with the outcome then there's nothing to be gained by provoking more drama... bobrayner (talk) 01:47, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I really don't know what to call the mediator's claim that "the other parties accepted the rulings I made" other than a lie. I did not accept it - quite the opposite (and I said so), since the "decision" contradicted itself, didn't even mention the main issue, and isn't supposed to be the outcome of a mediation cabal process anyway. 8digits, the person that requested the mediation in the first place, hasn't posted on the mediation page in :weeks. The only participant that could plausibly be said to have accepted it is Wpegden.

Apart from that, I feel that the mediation was unsatisfactory in just about every aspect. The mediator repeatedly contradicted himself, demonstrated little understanding of the issue, and failed to take even the most basic care in writing responses. I'll just illustrate that last point with a quote. After accusing me of various things I didn't do, he said:

"Sorry, I think I am going slightly mad....I have been blaming the wrong person...I have reviewed the discussions above, and I can find no evidence to substantiate my claims. I will not withdraw my Mediator's Commission, because we are too far into this case for a new mediator to pick it up and understand it quickly, but I will issue a public apology which will remain on this page."

Given all this, I don't see that there's anything you can do that could create more hassle or further undermine the process - it's already thoroughly discredited. Waleswatcher (talk) 13:54, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I was aware of this too, as Steven says, and I'm sorry that the process hasn't worked as you expected. Issuing rulings is not something that we usually do at MedCab, and I can see that there is a lot of work still to do to resolve the dispute to the satisfaction of everyone involved. I have some ideas about how us MedCab coordinators can handle this sort of situation better next time, but for now the important thing is to decide how to proceed in getting your dispute resolved. I think that in this situation it would be appropriate to pass this dispute on to the Mediation Committee, where it would be handled by an experienced mediator. This depends, of course, on whether all the parties are willing to go ahead with it, and whether the Mediation Committee would accept it. In this case, though, I think the chances of it being accepted are good. What does everyone think of this suggestion? — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 17:15, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I think that would be a positive move. bobrayner (talk) 17:30, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I do think a real mediation might have produced a consensus, and from there an improved article. On the other hand this has already been a pretty huge waste of time, and I'm reluctant to commit even more to it considering the record so far. So I guess I'll participate if it goes ahead, but I'm not going to push for it. Waleswatcher (talk) 17:36, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

It's up to you what to do, of course. However, I think it would be worth bearing in mind that the Mediation Committee are a completely different organization than MedCab, so you shouldn't assume that things you have encountered here will be repeated there. For more background, I recommend reading Wikipedia:Mediation and the Mediation Committee's policy page. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 19:11, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Let me make it coordinator-unanimous. Taking it to MedCom would be a good next step. A lot of different things went wrong in this case (and I'm not pointing fingers, just noting the fact) and, although all of us here at WP are volunteers at the end of the day, the mediators at MedCom are there through a filtering system somewhat similar to a request for adminship [and, indeed, most if not all of them are admins], whereas becoming a mediator here at MedCab is no more than saying, "I'll do it!"). One advantage of coming to MedCab is that you're much more likely to get your case heard; one disadvantage is that the process is largely up to the individual mediator. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:42, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

• For what its worth, I posted this notice to Thehistorian10 advising them that they should not mediate at MedCab anymore, though they have reverted it and gone on a downward spiral. I agree with the other coordinators in regards to referral to the Mediation Committee. There aren't that many active mediators at present here, and we are stretched rather thin at present. I think MedCom has a lighter case load than even us, so give that a go. Apologies again for how this case turned out. Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 19:54, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I just thought I should chime in since I'm the other person that was actually involved in the mediation. As Waleswatcher noted, a third user (8digits) requested the mediation but did not actively participate. (That's not a great way to have started that process, I have to say, as I don't think everyone even completely agreed on what the disagreement was.)

In light of what a mess it was, and seeing now that it was run in a way that was completely out of line with the guidelines for mediations, I'm completely willing to go through some other mediation process if you guys (and Waleswatcher) think that would be best. At this point, the paragraph that was in dispute has since been edited to reflect understanding between Waleswatcher and I on a separate issue without edit warring, so maybe a Mediation less crucial now. Wpegden (talk) 00:44, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm pretty happy with the way the article is now, and I think Wpegden and I managed to work together constructively on it - but only once this "mediation" was out of the way. While I still believe the phrase that started all this is both true and acceptable by wiki's guidelines, it's also not really needed in the article as it is now. For these reasons and the ones I mentioned above, I don't think additional mediation is necessary at this time. Waleswatcher (talk) 18:44, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

That's good - if you feel that you can work together on this, then I agree that mediation is probably not necessary. If the discussion on the talk page gets stuck again you can always start a thread at the dispute resolution noticeboard, and we can take things from there. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 00:31, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Fix going forward

I've boldly made two changes in the mediator suggestions here (the most important part of which is actually the last sentence) and in the case listing template here to try to help to avoid this issue in the future. What do you think? Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:11, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Works for me. Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 21:33, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Second. Lord Roem (talk) 00:25, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Good idea. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 20:28, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I've just tightened the wording a little, hope you don't mind. Feel free to make further improvements. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 20:33, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Inactive status boxes

Any way the MedCab bot can be changed so it recognizes edits on a page's talk page as ongoing? The discussion on my case is moving forward on the case talk page, but the medcab bot sees no changes to the main page and thus marks it as inactive. If this can be tweaked, that would be great! Thanks! Lord Roem (talk) 19:07, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Mediation policy, new section

Please see the Control of mediation section which I have boldly added to the Mediation policy. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:13, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Guidance, please

I was wondering if I could have a bit of guidance and input from fellow mediators. I am currently mediating this case on the Falklands War; specifically, how the British leadership of the war should be expressed the infobox. The dispute was previously discussed at Talk:Falklands War#Margaret Thatcher, then briefly at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Falklands and request for input on the use of the infobox. I did not start the mediation great, but it became clear to me that the prevailing consensus, both before the case and then during the case, is that Margaret Thatcher alone should be presented as the British leader in the infobox. Wee Curry Monster has challenged my perception of this consensus, raising the issue here. I have told him that I will ask other mediators what they think the current consensus is, and I will go with whatever advice I am given. So, how would you interpret the current consensus? Thank you. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 17:14, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure why declaring a 'consensus' on one side is needed for the mediation. I see mediation as an opportunity for all sides to come together (i.e. have to give a little) and find some common ground. Deciding at the onset that one side has 'consensus' is probably not the best way to go. However, if it is really just one user being disruptive (which I'm saying in a vacuum, not this specific case) then that is a pure conduct issue which we can't get involved in.

My advice is to work forward with the case to find common ground, rather than determining which side has 'consensus'. A mediator needs to both be and be perceived as impartial to everyone's interests. Best regards and best of luck, Lord Roem (talk) 18:12, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree, M'Lord. (Sorry, it's a holdover from my old SCA days. ) Indeed, I believe that the first thing we must do when considering a dispute (with no criticism intended towards ItsZippy), whether here or at one of the other DR forums, is to determine whether or not it's being brought to us as forum shopping. If consensus is already clearly established in the discussion then there is no dispute to mediate and a request brought by the minority party is nothing more than a form of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT disruption. As you say, it is a conduct issue, but to proceed with DR in such a case is to aid and abet the disrupter and is not in the best interest of the encyclopedia. (And I haven't looked to see if I think there was consensus in this particular case, either.) Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:43, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

TransporterMan, I think our positions aren't mutually exclusive. I agree, we should be sure the mediation filing is not an attempt at forum shopping. However, I think we need to ensure that the mediator does their best to be neutral and guide the parties involved to a resolution everyone can live with. I don't know the particulars of this specific case, but I do think it is prudent to advise ItsZippy to do his best to not seem biased on the matter. Thus, if there really is no consensus and all parties are in a deep, entrenched dispute, a mediator should do his best to find reasonable ground, not say one side is already sort of "leading" the argument. I think that's a fair way to put it. :) Lord Roem (talk) 19:52, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Addendum: I do want to commend ItsZippy who seems to have handled the matter well. I would defer to the discretion of his decision if he feels there is an attempt at forum shopping here. If he so feels, he should make that clear. If not, then he should do his best to work from a neutral ground. Lord Roem (talk) 19:54, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I concur and one key to the mutuality of our positions was my use of "clearly established." We shouldn't assert, and most certainly shouldn't push, that an uncertain or weak consensus or a simple majority is a definitive consensus. In that situation we should move forward with DR. Another situation, which I was about to supplement when you responded, is the situation in which the question explicitly brought to us is whether consensus has or has not been established. (By the very fact that the question is being asked, the answer will ordinarily be "no," of course, unless one or more of the parties are very inexperienced and do not know how to evaluate consensus, unless IDIDNTHEARTHAT is involved, or unless all of the parties are so nice that no one is willing to claim the !win [and fat chance of seeing that more than once in a Wiki-lifetime].) Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:15, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the responses. I think the issue stemmed from a personal oversight of mine at the beginning: I failed to full read the prior discussion. Had I adequately done this before, I probably would not have opened the mediation case. Presently, the dispute seems to consist of two issues: firstly, the specific issue of the content itself, which I believe has a consensus); and secondly, the merits of a wider discussion about the issue in general, which has been raised but has had little discussion. As it is, a number of the parties involved now seem to have either given up with the mediation or become disinterested, yet the issue remains unresolved. This is the first case I have mediated properly (aside from the last one, which closed when one of the parties turned out to be a sockpuppet), so I am wondering what the best course of action to take would be now. Thanks. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 16:36, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Ground rules and structure

Hey all. Noticed quite a few cases have started off with laying down ground rules and asking for opening comments. Such action is occasionally necessary, whether it's due to heated conflict between parties, edit warring, or a complex, perhaps contentious topic under mediation. But this isn't necessary in every case. It requires an analysis of the situation, and a decision on the part of the mediator to decide what style is required, whether it's a strict structure which the mediator controls, or a more free style of discussion where they act as an observer and a guide. There's no sonic screwdriver in a mediators toolkit, no "one size fits all". We need to adat to the situation and go from there. If in doubt, ask for advice. :-) Steven Zhang ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 20:59, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

As you're advertising advice, I was wondering if you got this message? ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 21:14, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Just as a note, the case I opened (with the ground rules format) is probably necessitated with the way these editors are editing...they need some structure. :) Lord Roem (talk) 21:37, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

It's always good to have it structured ;) Whenaxis talk · contribs | DR goes to Wikimania! 23:32, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Yep, I got that notice :-) I'm pretty sure I replied to it. Structure can help at times, but at times it can constrict the discussion. Just don't use it for everything :-) Steven Zhang ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 06:03, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree that too much structure can be stifling. Knowing when to use it and when not to is an art, I think. (And one that I'm still getting used to.) I think that ground rules are pretty much always a good idea for any reasonably big case though - and at the moment, the smaller cases are generally being handled at WP:DRN. I do agree that it's a good idea to customize the ground rules depending on the particular situation. In mediation, one size does not fit all. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 06:15, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

John Searle

I've open a case here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/07_March_2012/ . 23:49, 12 March 2012 (UTC) Have I done something wrong? Thanks --Hibrido Mutante (talk) 20:57, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the title was incorrectly formatted, so our bot didn't report it to the cases page. I've moved it to Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/07 March 2012/John Searle, which should do the trick. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 23:38, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Closing MedCab

I know that some of us have discussed this for some time, but I think that after the verifiability mediation closes, it might be time to close MedCab. While "it's not used very much" isn't really a sufficient enough reason alone, but the fact that it also duplicates many functions of both DRN and MedCom makes it somewhat redundant. It may be confusing at first, but a notice can be easily put up to direct small disputes to DRN, and larger ones to MedCom. I'll begin the closing after the verifiability mediation is complete, but I welcome feedback and ideas on how to make the transition a smooth one. Regards, Steven Zhang ^{Get involved in DR!} 02:14, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Is this really necessary? Are you saying that DRN and MedCab are informal so they overlap? High assumptions wouldn't you say?Curb Chain (talk) 03:24, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

MedCab at present has elements of both DRN, in its structure and the fact that it is informal, but also has elements of formal mediation. This has been discussed for a few months, but one of the main things I've learned from the dispute resolution survey is that the community feels that dispute resolution is too complex, and that there are too many dispute resolution forums. I do think this is a necessary step, and is the reason I've posted a note here. Steven Zhang ^{Get involved in DR!} 04:00, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Why haven't these results been released and why are you acting upon these results when they have not yet been made public.Curb Chain (talk) 04:12, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

The executive summary of the survey hasn't been written up yet, and I am working on completing that. It's partially because of my knowledge of the results that I open this thread, but also because the three MedCab co-ordinators have been discussing this for some time and think it's the best thing to do. To give some perspective, 43% of the respondents said that there were too many dispute resolution forums, 39% said it was too complex, and 30% said it was too hard to find the right place to get a resolution. There are other proposals in the works (see WT:DRP) however this one is first on the list - mainly because it's the easiest to do. Steven Zhang ^{Get involved in DR!} 04:40, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

As I have mentioned before, who are the respondents? I am aware that these results are calculated from those who completed the survey, and those you sent this survey out to, who were only participants at these fora.Curb Chain (talk) 20:01, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I can't necessarily fault the logic of what is being proposed. But, it's a bit puzzling (concerning?) that, as far as I can remember it, it's Steven that proposed the creation of DRN (thereby creating an extra forum for dispute resolution), then Steven that's writing up this survey, Steven that has concluded from the survey data (as yet unseen by others) that there are too many forums for dispute resolution, Steven that's decided that Medcab is the odd one out (perhaps with input and agreement from others, but that seems to be behind the scenes), and Steven that has therefore already decided to "begin the closing". Would it not make sense for there to be a bit of a wider consultation before such a decision is already a fait accompli? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:32, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

May I butt in? Coincidentally I helped, just a little, with some of the the analysis of survey results (Steven Zhang was fretting about workload and I bullied him into sending me part of a spreadsheet). Actual responses were anonymised, but even if I knew, I think it would be unethical to associate specific respondents with specific responses, not least because a couple of people were really open in some of the free-text fields and gave blow-by-blow accounts of their DR experiences. If the analysis of the survey results isn't finished, then maybe talking about closing medcab is a little premature, but I'm sure that Steven is only human; and I did see that quite a lot of survey responses underlined problems with complexity &c... bobrayner (talk) 20:45, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

This has been discussed on TALK:DRN where the survey results where only from active 'mediators' of DRN, (or exactly who the respondents were, they were not from a wide community) so this would skew the any conclusion from results. As Steven Zhang has stated and using percentages that so anand so felt that dispute resolution is a complex process, I feel that the statistics are not representative a community, but a demographic who works in these areas, and are we to use these statistics to execute changes?Curb Chain (talk) 20:55, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

The selection criteria was based on participation in dispute resolution - as a party as well as an assistant, so the sample is appropriate to the survey. Itd be pointless to ask randoms their opinion on dispute resolution if they've never used it. MedCab is first on the list because it is the most redundant - it was not a random choice. I'll be uploading the results later today or tomorrow, and we can go from there I guess. Steven Zhang ^{Get involved in DR!} 21:33, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually, you should have asked random people because they may never used DR because of their fear, dauntingness, etc.. It would have been scrupulous to cite uploaded data, before citing data noone knows. And lastly, you should notify Wikipedia talk:DR of this.Curb Chain (talk) 21:38, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I'd just like to point out to everyone that this is not a new idea, and Steve hasn't thought it up on the spur of the moment. There was talk about closing down MedCab (first suggested by yours truly) back in September, although nothing much happened then. I also understand that this has been discussed on MedCom's mailing list, though I haven't seen any of this discussion myself. Personally I think it makes sense to have just one place to go to for formal mediation, and really for the last 6 months or so all the cases that have been mediated here were big enough that they should probably have been at formal mediation anyway. The smaller stuff has just been dealt with at DRN. Exactly how to make the transition is another question, however. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 21:52, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

@Curb Chain, the survey, including the questions and selection criteria, we're analyzed by the Wikimedia Research Committee who gave it the all clear. Selecting any joe blow as opposed to people who have used dispute resolution is in my opinion, contrary to the purpose of the survey, which is to assess the opinion of dispute resolution from those that have used it. I honestly didn't think this change would be met with resistance - it seems to be the logical step to take here. DRN is fulfilling a role that MedCab used to fill, and in my opinion is doing a decent job at it. For issues that can't be resolved at DRN, they either need a firmer hand (from MedCom) or more community input (at an RFC). I'm not sure what purpose MedCab serves anymore, and as Mr. Strad notes, it has been discussed before. Let's chat about it some more and see what we can come up with. Steven Zhang ^{Get involved in DR!} 22:01, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Emphasis on "those who have used it". Why then are you applying this statistics to such a big change (I am not opposed to it) when it can potentially affect people who have never used it?Curb Chain (talk) 22:07, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

It concerns me because you use these statistics to add weight to your arguments across all the DR fora.Curb Chain (talk) 22:08, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I'll release the survey today, but one of the questions was "What do you feel makes dispute resolution difficult". It'd be hard to review the responses of people who have never used dispute resolution because they wouldn't know what makes the process difficult. Every survey is targeted in some way - the new page patrol survey to those who have done that, and so on. I use the stats from the survey because it does back up my arguments, but also because it's the feelings of the community that make me consider the change in the first place, and because RFCs on DR generally go nowhere. Steven Zhang ^{Get involved in DR!} 22:24, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

DR is not the same as recent pages patrol. DR affects everyone and fear, conflict of interest, dauntingness etc. are all legitimate reasons a user may not use it. Maybe a separate survey without that question should have been provided?Curb Chain (talk) 22:59, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

The selection criteria was reviewed, and I think was appropriate in this instance. I've asked one of the researchers who has helped me with the survey to chip in here. Steven Zhang ^{Get involved in DR!} 23:24, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Steven, I don't believe that I've ever said as one of the coordinators that I was in favor of closing MedCab. Indeed, I've never said that I was necessarily in favor of closing any current DR forum. I've listened to some open ended suggestions about it and discussed the possibility, but I've never come our unreservedly in favor of closing anything, nor will I be in favor of it until the survey results are made public, thoroughly discussed, and a consistent and coherent plan is in place. Then I'll make a decision, but I'm not yet convinced that what we have now doesn't work about as well as anything can. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 22:13, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Hm, I did think we discussed this before. Sounds like a plan. Steven Zhang ^{Get involved in DR!} 22:24, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I review for RComm, and I helped Steven with this survey a bit. The sampling criteria were appropriate. It's not good research practice to survey a random sample of Wikipedians in this case (or indeed, in most cases) because a) it's disruptive, and b) it's not very efficient and c) it would have made it harder to trust the results. Random sampling decreases your ability to be confident that the people giving you feedback are actually speaking from experience, rather than opining. This survey was about experiences with DR. But I think that Curb has a point that proposing to close a mediation forum based on results that haven't made public yet is probably premature. - J-Mo ^{Talk to Me} _{Email Me} 23:43, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

"The/the" at Beatles articles

We need mediation. This issue continues to come up and it needs to be decided so that editors are not wasting their valuable time on a daily basis debating this. Can someone please give the community some guidance here. I know, it may seem trivial, but we need direction to avoid random spheres of influence on the issue. I think this should begin at the Beatles talk page. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:26, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Beginning at the article talk page is a great idea! If the dispute persists, I think the strong DR-helpers at the content noticeboard will be free to lend a hand. And, if that still isn't enough, you are always free to file a request for mediation from an experienced mediator. Lord Roem (talk) 20:28, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

This has already been discussed ad nauseum at the respective talk pages. I think we are at a stalemate there, thus I opened this formal request here to seek mediation. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:02, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

For those new to the discussion, this was at DRN but went stale. There is currently a discussion about the close at DRN talk. (Disclaimer - I was the closer.) The problem is that one of the involved editors has been inactive for a while, and dispute resolution can't really proceed in their absence. (If this is a simple matter of "the" versus "The", then we might still be able to sort things out with an RfC, but from what I saw the dispute looked more complicated than that.) Thoughts and suggestions on what to do are very much welcome. — Mr. Stradivarius on tour ^{(have a chat)} 03:30, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the update + link! Lord Roem (talk) 03:38, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I see there is an RfC open about the "the" issue, so you can ignore that part of my comment. Also, there is now a MedCom request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/The Beatles. This is probably best dealt with on the MedCom page now, I think. — Mr. Stradivarius on tour ^{(have a chat)} 04:40, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Resolving this by RfC would be far better than an extended mediation. I'll cross my fingers. :) Lord Roem (talk) 11:37, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually, Mr. Stradivarius, the DRN you closed was completely unrelated to the "The/the" debate. It had to do with wholesale reverts by DK of paragraphs, sub-sections and sections to their previous preferred versions. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:13, 16 July 2012 (UTC)