Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-08-17/Voluntary Human Extinction Movement

Wikipedia Mediation Cabal
Article	Voluntary Human Extinction Movement
Status	Closed
Request date	10:08, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Requesting party	Skyeking (talk)
Mediator(s)	bobrayner (talk)

Request Details:

Where is the dispute?

The dispute resolution discussion is located at Skyeking’s User Talk Page / Section 5 and Section 6.

Article: Voluntary Human Extinction Movement

Who is involved?

• User:Skyeking
• User:207.61.241.100
• User:Nuujinn

What is the dispute?

• Contested Edits:

The deletion of two Wikipedia links (“Altruism” / “Morality”) from the article’s See Also section.
Article Revision History – 07:34, 10 August 2010 207.61.241.100

–Current argument of 207.61.241.100 is that the VHEMT Article will be improved if two article links (“Altruism” / “Morality”) are removed.

–Current argument of Skyeking is that the VHEMT Article will not be improved if the two article links are removed.

• Dispute Resolution Discussion – Main Topic (proper context):

The word altruism (altruistic actions) as it applies to individuals worldwide who voluntarily refrain from birthing a human (population control) – unselfish action(s), motivated by the desire to benefit others – volunteering (choosing) to help lower human overpopulation.

• Unresolved Contention / Diametrically Opposed Conclusions:

EDITOR: Skyeking
(Conclusion)
An altruistic action is validated by the action (and benefit) itself – not numbers. It is illogical to define and/or require altruistic action(s) to be dependent upon a numbers game – such numbers are not applicable (irrelevant) to the Main Topic.

I’m at an impasse; diametrically opposed conclusions against Editor 207.61.241.100

NOTE 1:
Human population numbers are perpetually changing (exponentially increasing / continual population growth) – i.e. 230,000 births per 24-hours (actualized; deaths already offset).

The Population Clock numbers will change every three-seconds if you refresh (reload) the web page – key the refresh button of your web browser (Firefox, Opera, Chrome, and so on).


NOTE 2 – Definitions:

“diametrically opposed”:
Frequently used in the phrase “diametrically opposed”; meaning absolutely in opposition.

contention:
A dispute where there is strong disagreement.

conclusion:
A judgment or decision reached after deliberation (discussion and consideration).

context:
The parts of a written communication, speech, etc., that precede and follow a word or passage and contribute to its full meaning – i.e. “It is unfair to quote out of context.”

volunteer:
A person who renders aid, performs a service, or assumes an obligation voluntarily.


EDITOR: 207.61.241.100
(Conclusion)

What would you like to change about this?

The two Editors (Who Is Involved?) are awaiting the guidance of a Mediator.

How do you think we can help?

Unknown – yet, both Editors agreed to the filing of this Dispute Resolution Request (WP:DRR).
The two Editors (Who Is Involved?) are awaiting the guidance of a Mediator.

I, Skyeking agree to the filing of this Dispute Resolution Request (WP:DRR).
Skyeking (talk) 10:08, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Mediator Notes

Hi,
I'll take this case on, if you would like me to mediate.

I have removed the comment above which implied agreement by 207.61.241.100, because it was written by Skyeking. I hope you don't mind. Please try to avoid the appearance of putting words in other people's mouths. If you agree to mediation, please sign below:

I am extremely reluctant to move people's text around, but I think it was necessary again, because skyeking accidentally put a large volume of text in the "mediator notes" section, of which only a small part was related to anything I said. Skyeking is not the mediator. Since the text appeared to be discussion, I reluctantly moved it to the "discussion" section. If you feel it is important to put it under "mediator notes", or if you are not sure how to edit, please let me know and I will try to help. It would be good if everybody could try to present their points clearly.

I'm sorry if you feel I accused you of anything. Looking at the page history, I think the page might have some ownership problems, but I certainly did not accuse you of anything. However, if people feel that page ownership is part of the problem, we can discuss that.

If you do not agree to moderation then we cannot make much progress here, and I may close the case. Are you sure? There does still seem to be a problem on the page. If you would like to work towards a solution, I would like to help.

bobrayner (talk) 02:35, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

PROLOGUE:
The following conversation was moved by the acting Mediator (Bobrayner) from the above Section: Mediator Notes. In addition, Skyeking copied portions of Bobrayner’s statements; provides continuity of discussion.


Bobrayner:
I have removed the comment above which implied agreement by 207.61.241.100, because it was written by Skyeking. I hope you don’t mind. Please try to avoid the appearance of putting words in other people’s mouths. If you agree to mediation, please sign below:

SKYEKING response:
I do mind your implication of (quote), “…..appearance of putting words in other people’s mouths.”

Though my thoughtfulness (intent) is misinterpreted by you, my justification came from the statement** by the other party (207.61.241.100). And said party was notified that there were areas on the DRR that required his/her input (i.e. his/her signature to the DRR filing statement / or a revision of same). Regardless of your misinterpretation, I also consider your statements (WP:COI / WP:OWNER) to Nuujinn as prejudicial, unsubstantiated, and “muddy the waters”.

Therefore, I respectfully decline your offer of acting Mediator.

<**Statement by the other party (207.61.241.100):
"Whatever, add a request....." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.61.241.100 (talk) 20:37, 18 August 2010 (UTC)


NOTE 1:

Paraphrased (not complete statement):
“Finally, my leisure time is extremely limited; therefore I don’t have time to be a dedicated Wikipedian. So, I chose the VHEMT Article because I recognized that said Article suffered from gross vandalism and irresponsible Editors.”
05:47, 31 March 2010 – Skyeking
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jagerman

Paraphrased (not complete statement):
“I’ve amended my comment above to remove the potential conflict of interest claim; it was minor and did not belong on the talk page. My apologies.”
17:10, 4 April 2010 – Jagerman
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Voluntary_Human_Extinction_Movement#Notability_and_single-source


NOTE 2 – Definitions:

prejudicial:
1. Detrimental; injurious.
2. Causing or tending to preconceived judgment or convictions.

unsubstantiated:
Unsupported by other evidence.

“muddy the waters”
To make a situation more confusing.

EXAMPLE – Paraphrased (not complete statement):

“.....other related disagreements.....I can see some serious ownership problems.....

21:28, 20 August 2010 – bobrayner
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bobrayner#Voluntary_Human_Extinction_Movement


As previously stated, I respectfully decline your offer of acting Mediator.
Wiki Regards,
Skyeking (talk) 01:04, 21 August 2010 (UTC)



PROLOGUE:
The following conversation relates to the Section: Mediator Notes. I (Skyeking) would normally copy portions of Bobrayner’s statements; provides continuity of discussion. But, in this situation readers will need to reference the Section: Mediator Notes.

Bobrayner:
(All statements located at Section: Mediator Notes)
“I am extremely reluctant to move.....

SKYEKING response:
Now continuing conversation with Bobrayner.....

First, please clarify when you use the generic word “page” – i.e. Article Page / Article Talk Page / User Talk Page / User Page / Skyeking’s User Talk Page / and so on. Otherwise, you are causing ineffective communication.

Second, I request answers from Bobrayner to these questions:

Question #1:
(All dates prior to August 31, 2009)

Prior to August 31, 2009 – were you an assigned Mediator to any “Mediation Cabal” case(s)?

Question #2:
(All dates from September 1, 2009 – August 1, 2010)

From September 1, 2009 – August 1, 2010; were you an assigned Mediator to any “Mediation Cabal” case(s)?

Question #3:

Do you believe that you have complied with the following links? If so, what percentage number (20% – 40% – etc.) would you assign to your level of compliance?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Suggestions_for_mediators

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Committee/Policy#Procedure_for_mediation

Question #4:

Are you confused about the location of the editing dispute discussion between Skyeking and 207.61.241.100?

To clarify; the dispute resolution discussion that is at an impasse is located at Skyeking’s User Talk Page / Section 5 and Section 6.

Question #5:
(It would be good if everybody could try to present their points clearly.)

As I understand your statement (quote), “…..I certainly did not accuse you of anything.” – you have declared that Skyeking (myself) is innocent of WP:COI / WP:OWNER. Is that correct?

Question #6:
(It would be good if everybody could try to present their points clearly.)

Who are you accusing of WP:COI / WP:OWNER (declare the names - User ID)?

My first evaluation of your mediator skills was that you are an inexperienced novice. My second evaluation (historical research) confirmed my first evaluation.

With reservations, I might consider accepting you as a Mediator – when an additional Senior Mediator (i.e. User:PhilKnight) is assigned (his name added to the information block; confirmation) to oversee you, and monitor your compliance with mediation methods.

Otherwise, my request is that you (Bobrayner) recuse yourself; your actions have been questionable and you are a novice without mediation experience. Yet, this Mediation Cabal case should remain active ("Cases needing mediators") because there is the possibility that an experienced Mediator(s) will choose the case.

In addition, at this time, I believe you have a responsibility to consult with User:PhilKnight (or other Senior Mediators) – the beginning of this mediation has already become crippled.

Finally, I am willing to participate in mediation; my provision is that a proper form of mediation be applied to the mediation discussion. And my request is that this Mediation Cabal case remain active ("Cases needing mediators") because there is a possibility that an experienced Mediator(s) will choose the case.

Wiki Regards,
Skyeking (talk) 13:50, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

STATUS – Skyeking (talk) 13:50, 21 August 2010 (UTC):
«««»»»Awaiting response from bobrayner«««»»»

Perhaps there has been some misunderstanding, skyeking. I am here to mediate on the subject that you proposed for mediation. I am not here to accuse or exhonerate you of other things that might or might not have happened on that article; you seem very sensitive about ownership but we don't have to discuss it here if you don't want. However, you now seem more willing to continue with mediation. Is that the case or not?

This is the second case that I have taken on as mediator. If you had specified in advance that you required a mediator with experience of more than X cases, I would not have taken on this case. Do you have any other rules that you want to apply to mediation? Please let us know sooner rather than later. I hope there won't be many rules, as the more you try to control the discussion, the less likely it is that we'll reach a solution everybody is happy with.

I have seen the discussion you link to. I have also seen the article history and the article talkpage history, which contains a great deal more information relevant to the subject, much of which has been deleted by skyeking. Now, can we try to discuss the problem that you raised?

Would any other editors like to contribute?

bobrayner (talk) 19:51, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

SKYEKING response:
Now continuing conversation with Bobrayner.....

Bobrayner:
“Is that the case or not?”

Skyeking:
My interpretation of your question is, “Are you willing to continue with mediation?” If my clarification of your question is correct, then my answer is: Yes.

Bobrayner:
Do you have any other rules that you want to apply to mediation?

Skyeking:
Yes. I prefer definitive questions (method of mediation). Ambiguity is unacceptable. And, I reserve the prerogative of clarification (elucidate), and my future requests (rules). In addition, my reasonable expectation is that others will comply with mediation methods. And should I err (violate mediation methods) my hope is that others will offer me a definitive correction statement for my evaluation (understanding).

Bobrayner:
Now, can we try to discuss the problem that you raised?

Skyeking:
Your question is ambiguous. My interpretation of your question is, “I would like to help you (and 207.61.241.100). Can you and I (as we await 207.61.241.100) calmly and logically discuss why you and 207.61.241.100 are at an impasse in the editing dispute discussion? – (as defined in the DRR question: What is the dispute?).

If my clarification of your question is correct, then my answer is: Yes.

But, are we supposed to be discussing without the attendance of 207.61.241.100 (thus far he/she has not offered any statements)?

NOTE:
Regardless that I have interpretation skills, others may not – thereby causing ineffective communication.


Now, I have some questions:

• What is the communication status of 207.61.241.100? Is he/she going to participate in the mediation?

• Is there a finite number to how many parties are to be included this mediation?

• Nuujinn has not presented any opening statement(s). Why not? What is his role?

• Regarding the DRR question: Who is involved? – is there a closing date?

Clarification:

Is there a cut-off date when people are no longer allowed to sign-in (i.e. become participants in this mediation)?

• You (Bobrayner) asked the question, “Would any other editors like to contribute?”

Clarification request:

What is the definitive meaning of your question?

Wiki Regards,
Skyeking (talk) 03:00, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

STATUS – Skyeking (talk) 03:00, 22 August 2010 (UTC):
«««»»»Awaiting response from Bobrayner«««»»»

Comment from Nuujinn

Skyeking, regarding my role, I don't believe I have a formal one per se, especially since this is a cabal mediation. My intent is to be helpful in a general sense, as I have an interest in the article in general. Do you have any questions for me? (and please, if you do, just ask them here and I'll answer in the usual indented fashion--I confess I have a hard time following the format you've been using with Bobrayner and 207.61.241.100. --Nuujinn (talk) 12:23, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

SKYEKING response:
Now continuing conversation with Nuujinn.....

Nuujinn:
Do you have any questions for me?

Skyeking:
Not at this time. Thank you for offering.

NOTE:
My communication format is because of health reasons (privacy). I’m thankful for your tolerance of my written communication style.

Wiki Regards,
Skyeking (talk) 20:49, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Duly noted, I'll do the best I can with it, thanks for the clarification. Nuujinn (talk) 21:01, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Case Closure

QUESTION:
To those who have edited (or interest in) the VHEMT Article, "What are your thoughts about closing this Mediation Cabal Case?"
In addition, the same question applies to the case Mediator (Bobrayner).
My choice is to "Close".
Wiki Regards,
Skyeking (talk) 22:03, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

PhilKnight, thanks for closing the case. I had been waiting for 207.61.241.100 to contribute, but we can only wait so long. Thanks, everyone, for your time. ;-) bobrayner (talk) 00:00, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

PhilKnight (Administrator), you have my heartfelt "Thank You" for your assistance.

And I echo Bobrayner's statement.

Wiki Regards,

Skyeking (talk) 21:14, 27 September 2010 (UTC)