Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-02-03 2ct7 v. SomeHuman

Wikipedia Mediation Cabal
Wikipedia Mediation Cabal
Article	Talk:Humanism (edit \| article \| history \| links \| watch \| logs)
Status	closed
Request date	Unknown
Requesting party	Cocoaguy (the AMA)
Parties involved	2ct7 v. SomeHuman
Comment	asking to close

Mediation Case: 2ct7 v. SomeHuman

Please observe Wikipedia:Etiquette and Talk Page Etiquette in disputes. If you submit complaints or insults your edits are likely to be removed by the mediator, any other refactoring of the mediation case by anybody but the mediator is likely to be reverted. If you are not satisfied with the mediation procedure please submit your complaints to Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal.

Request Information

Request made by: Cocoaguy 従って _contribs^talk 03:09, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the issue taking place?: sevral user talk pages User_talk:Geo.plrd, User talk:Cocoaguy, User talk:SomeHuman, User talk:2ct7.; one artical/artical talk Humanism/ Talk:Humanism; AMA: Wikipedia:AMA Requests for Assistance/Requests/January 2007/2ct

Who's involved?: 2ct7 v. SomeHuman; the AMA

What's going on?: Both 2ct7 & SomeHuman have conflicting story that when the AMA got involved case a limted effect due to no offical power.

What would you like to change about that?: Just the case is worked out (maby disaplanary acts?) and to fix Humanism

Would you prefer we work discreetly? If so, how can we reach you?: No, this case like the AMA case should be open.

Mediator response

Is this case still active or can I close it? --Ideogram 01:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Closing. --Ideogram 01:08, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Compromise offers

This section is for listing and discussing compromise offers.

Discussion

While using the talk page of the article in question to solve a dispute is encouraged to involve a larger audience, feel free to discuss the case below if that is not possible. Other mediators are also encouraged to join in on the discussion as Wikipedia is based on consensus.

Mainly see User Talk:Geo.plrd#AMA (2ct7), as well as my comments at the AMA on the behaviour of 2ct7's advocate Cocoaguy (of whom I still do not appreciate the 'Get Lost' signature). Compare all this with Cocoaguy's answer to

What would you like to change about that?

Just the case is worked out (maby disaplanary acts?) and to fix Humanism

and as I haven't seen any attempted advocacy (besides an unargumented 'both at fa[u]lt') by Cocoaguy, to

What's going on?

Both 2ct7 & SomeHuman have conflicting story that when the AMA got involved case a limted effect due to no offical power.

Is official power required even for starting to try having a normal little talk with any party envolved? Frankly, the only power that appears to be lacking seems to be for stopping enduring alcohol abuse. I do not think that dislexis might explain all actions of this advocate. Advocates are assumed to be able to talk (for someone), not to strictly do an undisclosed investigation as a prosecutor's office, such would be acting under false pretences.

Who needs to be disciplined here, at the Mediation Cabal? And what does he mean by fix Humanism? Its history page shows it (besides being vandalized very often) to be the result of many contributors with rather different viewpoints; does Cocoaguy then have better judgement?

I assume my remark on forementioned Geo.plrd's talk page, "Personally, I think the few talk pages I mentioned allow you to get a picture and take some responsibility by advicing" was rather what my opponent 2ct7 was seeking at the AMA. Kind regards. — SomeHuman 3 Feb 2007 04:21-04:53 (UTC)

Please note that the top of the article's talk page most clearly shows a link to a talk page archive, mentioning that the latter (largely) contains several (often lengthy) discussions between contributors on the issue discussed at the active talk page between 2ct7 and myself. — I had refactored the talk page (by its length creating technical problems), leaving ample time to criticize my refactoring before creating the archive. Surprisingly in view of the heated passed debates, there has been no criticism at all: not exactly what one could explain if I would have taken a WP:OWN-attitude, but on the contrary explainable only by a NPOV attitude giving credit to each point of view and such being realized by the lot of editors who were likely to have the talk page on their watchlist. There were only comments on the duration of refactoring process, including by 2ct7 (who also made several archived contributions and is thus clearly aware of the archive, I did not need to point it out to him during our much later discussion). Having an interest for a particular article and doing proper work for it rather regularly while participating in talk page discussions, does not constitute WP:OWN. — SomeHuman 3 Feb 2007 11:36-12:11 (UTC)

i suggest insted we take this to the Mediation Committee. Cocoaguy 従って _contribs^talk 23:31, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2ct7 requested an advocate. Cocoaguy responded. After requesting assistance I came in to help. Somehuman and 2ct7 are involved in a dispute over Humanism. Both Cocoaguy and i feel that they are both at fault. This case was filed with the hope that they can be persuaded to come to the table to work out the areas of contention. G e o. 02:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]