Xavexgoem on Skype and IRC. Feel free to contact me either way (even on break, there's a good chance I'll be in #wikipedia-medcab).

Hi, I saw you added the expand template to lots of stubs. Expand tags should never be placed on stubs. See the documentation on Template:Expand. Garion96 (talk) 13:37, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I was mediating this and feel we were reasonably close to an agreement. There hasn't been activity for a few days but there was a good deal before then and people were getting close, I feel. In any event I'm a little perturbed that you should close this without at least signalling your intentions: I put quite a lot of time into this, as did all those who participated. What's the procedure for reopening it? Adell 1150 (talk) 20:26, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why did this case get closed? Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-04-27/List of charities accused of ties to terrorism Nothing was really resolved in that matter, and, although there has been little activity i still consider the issue to be outstanding. What steps do you recommend I take at this point? Thank you in advance. Bonewah (talk) 13:30, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

fyi, I usually have email disabled as I have a problem with what I see as the usual canvassing that occurs through the use of email, something I do not wish to take part in. I enabled it so that you can send me an email, though I will likely disable it once you do. So, in the future, if you do want to send me an email give me a heads up so that I can enable the feature. Thanks, nableezy - 21:07, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see you took on the Age of Reason mediation case about a week ago. Can you let us know when the mediation will begin? Thanks. Awadewit (talk) 21:03, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A number of users stated that informal means were not likely to help or be desired in the discussion with Bishonen earlier, and suggested that either formal discussion, or discussion at a neutral venue, was preferable. I have therefore posted a statement of concern at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Bishonen (2).

As the question/s were initially noted by yourself, I am advising you of the updated venue. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 06:41, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll give it a look. Xavexgoem (talk) 06:45, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for understanding me. LeUrsidae96 (talk) 07:52, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Sathya Sai Baba (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article could use the assistance of one or more mediators experienced with particularly controversial topic areas, as well as the attention of one or more uninvolved administrators. There is a typical pattern of long talk page posts, sprawling policy disputes that often take on an overall "wikilawyerish" tone, stagnant progress, and little administrative oversight. There were two arbitration cases centered around this article/topic: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sathya and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sathya Sai Baba 2. Any assistance you can provide in finding editors to fill the mediator and administrator roles for the Sathya Sai Baba topic would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! --Vassyana (talk) 12:31, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow... I must have slipped on my mouse or something... I didnt even realize i did that. Oops. Thanx for contacting me about it, though. I'll be more careful in the future.

--Wyatt915✍ 01:21, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article you have written to be allegedly be a biography of Mr. Nabih Berri, the current Speaker of Parliament of Lebanon, is nothing but an absurd defamation.

Kindly, you are requested to either remove it, or at least remove your own opinions from it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.229.235.38 (talk) 15:21, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, come right in! I've never edited that article. What is the specific defamation you're accusing us of, now? Xavexgoem (talk) 16:06, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for re-editing it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.229.236.213 (talk) 09:56, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Xavexgoem, thanks for taking a look at the WP:CF project and for saying hello on Skype. This is a hectic week for real-time chat, but I'd like to discuss the project more with you on-wiki. If you have time to take one of the issues listed at Wikipedia:Community Issues and try to synthesize the existing discussion on Future or Perennial proposals pages about it, that might be a practical way to figure out what CF is good for and what modifications the idea needs.

Be well, +sj+ 03:51, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, wow. I imagine. Congratulations on your election :-) Xavexgoem (talk) 21:11, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I took on a case a while ago regarding a dispute about inserting a Polish name for a place in an article. [1]. Unfourtunatley I've run into some IRL problems and will be absent from Wikipedia for a while, so I cannot mediate this case anymore. May you please take over for me? Thanks, -- Raziel  teatime  18:34, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

lolz, looks like you're doing quite well handling this (I think you should've taken this case instead >_>). IRL problems are settled but I'm going to be busy for the rest of the year (I'm a student), so I'm staying away from MedCab work until I have the time. Thanks again for taking this for me. Best wishes, -- Raziel  teatime  18:41, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there again Xavexgoem. Yes I would be happy to participate in this mediation.radek (talk) 00:24, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will also participate, thanks--Jacurek (talk) 00:30, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking care of us again :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 03:05, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you could take a look at Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2009-08-27/American_Watchmakers-Clockmakers_Institute, let me know if you have any advice about how to proceed. Gigs (talk) 01:01, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What advice can you give?

Olyeg 05:59, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

As you appear to be currently online, would you mind deleting Talk:Quds Day and moving Talk:International al-Quds Day to Talk:Quds Day? The project page was moved but an admin needs to do the talk page. nableezy - 17:18, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Xavexgoem (talk) 17:25, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, nableezy - 17:29, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am confused about this. It may take a month or so till people are ready to resume discussions there, but the process seemed to be quite helpful...? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:17, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Having read some of the mailing list, it is extremely unlikely that I will be mediating that dispute -- or any EE dispute. When the arbitration case closes, I'll put it back in the new cases if someone requests it. Xavexgoem (talk) 04:59, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry to hear that - but I guess you are right. I would also feel uneasy to have a person who violated my privacy and read my private emails be a neutral mediator. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 07:01, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely. Xavexgoem (talk) 07:14, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS. Just wanted to end by saying that I've appreciated and respected your work as a mediator in cases I was involved in so far. Sorry we have to end it here. Good luck in your future mediations, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 07:29, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm sorry I violated your privacy; I never really saw it that way, and I didn't take much from it fwiw. Just irked me, and I was having a bad day. So maybe I wouldn't have said that I won't be mediating EE disputes, but you are precisely right: as long as [that one place] exists, there's no way I can be neutral, or perceived as such. Xavexgoem (talk) 09:33, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How did you come in possesion of the mailing list? Loosmark (talk) 14:20, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you mean by "that one place"; personally I think we all make mistakes - and if you can see that reading private emails is a mistake, I see no reason why we couldn't resume our productive relationship in the future (it's not like I have not realized that I've made a bunch of mistakes myself, recently...nobody's perfect). In either case, it will probably be a while before the case settles down, and hopefully by then a lot of people (myself included) will be even more likely to let bygones be bygones :) In the end, you were doing a great job mediating those cases, and we - and Wikipedia - need such help. Take care, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:28, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your efforts, but I think this is only going to be resolved by giving Jaakobou the boot - it is about time he was banned from the article. He is wasting everyone's time with utter tendentiousness. I won't be wasting any further time on him. -- ChrisO (talk) 15:17, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yield, yield, yield. Xavexgoem (talk) 00:29, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not speedy, Snow and WP:IAR; if the disputed content is voluntarily removed, there is no purpose in further debate, and both his and your decisions are to be commended. It all makes for a better working environment, and anything that minimises the drama can only facilitate that. In retrospect, CofE should have perhaps been engaged in discussion and the issues explained earlier, and from that perspective, perhaps an MfD was a tad heavy-handed. However, I think all will walk away from this, forget it, and move forwards. Whether CofE will realise his ambition to be an Admin remains clouded by this incident, and has probably delayed it by at least six months. You acted correctly in the circumstances, in my view, FWIW. Rodhullandemu 23:25, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just happened upon the Wrong Version article. Isn't sarcasm great? There must be a barnstar for making someone laugh...BRB -- Rico 02:32, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{subst:The Barnstar of Good Humor}}, maybe. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:32, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I award me this award:

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		per above

... I think that was the intention. Xavexgoem (talk) 03:00, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't suppose that you've followed the Mattisse ArbCom case? (No? I'll take it as proof of natural good sense.) IMO it's a much bigger version of Scuro's problems with the ADHD case. At the moment, they're trying to find a way to get useful information to the mentors (four of them, I think) without having a dozen editors dump knee-jerk "defense" and "opposition" statements on the pages about every little thing. And, like Scuro, Mattisse really doesn't want the conversation on her user talk page. (Anyone who gets that many complaints would develop a twitch whenever the new message box pops up.)

You might want to look over WP:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification#Request_for_clarification:_Wikipedia:Arbitration.2FRequests.2FCase.2FMattisse It appears that they currently believe that not identifying basic ground rules from the very start (e.g., "Report perceived problems on this page" or "Mattisse should not edit this section" or "If you can't explain in less than 50 words, then it's voluntary drama, not a problem", or whatever might be useful) has exacerbated the mess, especially after Mattisse started removing negative comments from the centralized complaint page.

I don't have a specific solution to offer you, but you might want to consider their problems and see how many of them you can avoid. I'm sure you agree with me that there's no virtue in making this any more drama-oriented than necessary. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:32, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More unsolicited advice: I hope you are watching Literaturegeek's talk page. Thanks, Hordaland (talk) 17:49, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Folks, I have a lot on my plate. I ain't responsible for anyone's behavior. If you have specific issues you want to address, then please e-mail me. Thanks, Xavexgoem (talk) 18:07, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid things seem to be escalating regarding Jaakobou's bending of the time-space continuum on Muhammad al-Durrah - he is now attempting to delete sources that contradict his preferred chronology. He is currently attempting to push the issue on the reliable sources noticeboard. I wonder if you would like to say something there about your attempt to mediate this dispute? Please see [2]. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:05, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be covered... you can say that I tried, but stopped because I was concerned about the fabric of space. (redacted)Xavexgoem (talk) 02:47, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Xav. I've got the preliminaries out of the way - are you okay to take a lead on it from here? Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 12:57, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh wow... I completely forgot to watchlist that. Xavexgoem (talk) 16:12, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You need to police the page, as one disputant was unable to control his desire to make a threaded reply, even though you'd specifically said that you didn't want such. —SlamDiego_←T 14:01, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was kind of you to offer the out, but I for one have been pretty powerless to bring skip back, and an editor whose efforts would be essential to drawing skip back wants him gone.

I've not interacted with Skip as much as have some other editors, and don't know that much about his over-all editing, but he and I managed to have our disagreements without getting our backs up. I wasn't part of the pile-on, and I've previously summoned admins when he's been abused on the WikiProject page. —SlamDiego_←T 09:35, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I find the above comment ("powerless to bring skip back") strange as SD's only interaction with Skip has been to leave this message on his talk page [3]. Also, unlike what SD implies, I don't wish Skip gone, I wish for mediation to continue. But, I'm not here to talk about SD.

I came to explain about why I participated in the ANI discussion on Skip (which I did not bring or participate in bringing). I felt it my duty as part of the team editing Sustainability to participate in the ANI discussion about Skip's behavior there. It was my thinking that as a completely unrelated issue to the issue being mediated (weight in Economics), that this was proper. If any of this was inappropriate, I do apologize. Being new to mediation, (actually any dispute resolution in general apart from RfCs) I'm not sure what is appropriate and what is not. I'm happy to start mediation again if Skip comes back (unlikely it seems), or if other parties wish to continue without Skip. If we do start mediation again, perhaps you could clarify about what is proper behavior? Thanks. Anyway, just wanted to apologize for anything I did which may have been inappropriate. Regards, LK (talk) 11:16, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm powerless to bring skip back because I didn't act to drive him away, and I cannot plausibly get the editor who sought to drive him away to undo the results of his actions. Nor do I have a knowledge of skip's editing history that I might call upon in attempting to defend him against the charges at AN/I.

That message is the only that I've left on skip's talk page, but hardly the only interaction that I've ever had with him. And his response to my comment to his talk page was indeed to remove the item that he'd listed, without quarrel. —SlamDiego_←T 11:45, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. In the future I will try harder to avoid responding. --LK (talk) 13:46, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about it. Xavexgoem (talk)

You pinged this case to see if it was still active, as far as Im concerned, it is. Thanks Bonewah (talk) 13:21, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Xavexgoem ,Thank you for participating in my RfA, which passed nearly unanimously with 174 in support, 2 in opposition and 1 neutral votes. Special thanks goes to RegentsPark, Samir and John Carter for their kind nomination and support. I am truly honored by the trust and confidence that the community has placed in me. I thank you for your kind inputs and I will be sincerely looking at the reasons that people opposed me so I can improve in those areas ( including my english ;) ). If you ever need anything please feel free to ask me and I would be happy to help you :). Have a great day ! -- Tinu Cherian - 06:02, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is an RfC in the International reaction to the 2009 Honduran military coup. -- Rico 15:47, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the autoblock associated with User:Brews ohare's block, whom you unblocked yesterday. I presume it was uncontroversial since you performed the unblock yourself. Please let me know if that's incorrect.  Frank  |  talk  21:55, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

why have you closed my thread? So far only 2 editors commented. Loosmark (talk) 23:17, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because the previous thread was closed. It was about the same matter. You know and I know that the thread will devolve into a bunch of mud-slinging and nothing will get done. Xavexgoem (talk) 23:18, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just wait until Jacurek appeals. So far, all discussion around him -- when he is neither requesting unblock nor able to discuss the matter -- will appear partisan. Xavexgoem (talk) 23:21, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You said that you know the dispute very well, I doubt that very much since I have never seen you edit on the London Parade page. Loosmark (talk) 00:04, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know the content dispute, you are right. But if memory serves, you folks have been at each others' throats for a while now. Xavexgoem (talk) 00:36, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't know the content dispute why have you closed the thread then? i don't understand what you mean with the throats comment either, as i most certainly wasn't on anybody's throat and i don't remember ever having any problems with Future Perfect either. Loosmark (talk) 01:50, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that was so quick–a big thank you for removing the attempted outing attempt, Xavexgoem! Anti-Nationalist (talk) 01:20, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fut. Perfect actually got there before me :-) Xavexgoem (talk) 01:26, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I am a newer mediator at WP:MEDCAB. A situation in an ongoing discussion I am mediating has begun to prove vexing. Since you are a MEDCAB coordinator and experienced mediator, I would like to get your opinion.

• I have been mediating a dispute regarding the Donghu people article at its talk page. The process was going well. The group of four or five editors participating in the mediation had agreed that a certain version of the article should be used as a starting point for reasoned discussion.
• One editor though (User:Alexjhu), continued to make radical edits to the article and refused to discuss them on the talk page.
• Most recently, when the discussion did not seem to be going "his way", this editor started making serious legal threats here and refused to respond to requests that he stop.
• This seems very inappropriate to me, and this editor's participation in the discussion has become counterproductive. I wonder whether I should ask an administrator to consider sanctions in view of the clear legal threats the editor is making.

Thanks in advance for your advice! —Finn Casey * * * 01:32, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indef blocked per WP:Legal threats. Xavexgoem (talk) 01:39, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your quick reply! The discussion will be much smoother without that sort of confronational tone. Best wishes! :) —Finn Casey * * * 01:42, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Regarding your comment on my talk page: a look at the history of the Donghu people article shows that Alexjhu has been slow edit-warring with three users over the past month (plus me in the past couple days). I really think he is ultimately well-intentioned, and I was hoping when I opened the mediation that he would be amenable to a compromise. However, in the past few days his talk page edits have become more confrontational. Here for example he describes the views presented by two other editors as "personal fixations and rascist bigotry". That language makes it difficult to promote a collaborative atmosphere. I wish there was some way to get through to him that the collaborative process takes time, and that insults are very counterproductive. Thanks again for your help! —Finn Casey * * * 01:53, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to note yet another personal attack from Skip at Talk:Howard Scott‎. If you have the power to ban him, at least for a week or two, it would save dozens of editors a lot of grief. JQ (talk) 05:45, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your kind offer of help at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Attacks at AfD. If there is something you could do in the light of this latest attack, reported here, it would be a great help. Johnfos (talk) 06:33, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another attack, claiming that anyone who is an expert on a topic, thereby has a COI at Talk: Energy economics. This has been through just about every Wiki process going, and still nothing is done by anyone. Is there a chance you will actually ban this guy, or are we wasting more of our time by reporting particular instances? JQ (talk) 19:22, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what's going on here. No matter who initially created the article, it was improved by others, starting with me. I added proper sources and tried to fix the POV issues, and now it's being deleted apparently because of who initially created it. I would appreciate it if you could clarify this matter for me because frankly I'm a bit confused by all this. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:16, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello--You left this comment. Another admin (llywrch) left this one. I just wanted to get a feel for "what happens next" in regard to that AN/I. Is the discussion effectively over now, or is it worth continuing? Is it your judgment that we should let things lie until there are more problems, and then message you (or head to ArbCom, about which I know almost nothing)? Would we start another AN/I if there is a repeat of similar troubles? Should we consider Skipsievert "officially warned" to change their behavior in some way?

Anyway, thanks. I'm just trying to figure out where things lie. I'm going to leave a similar message for llywrch. CRETOG8(t/c) 02:57, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You raised some good points that I considered before sitting down to write this article. With my comments, I hope I was able to assuage your concerns over it. I am thinking that the Wikipedia:Lead section needs some expansion. Perhaps you would want to work with me on it? Also, I appreciate the "well written" comment. I worked really hard on that one.--Blargh29 (talk) 03:36, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I see your point. I have expanded the lead, which I think helps to properly contextualize the intersection between the lobbying efforts and the personal details that have attracted media. Because of the nature of their business, lobbyists rarely appear in the media, and the fact that the media covered her personal life in such detail is remarkable in of itself.--Blargh29 (talk) 03:58, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This was a good suggestion. --Blargh29 (talk) 04:04, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Skipsievert and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Requesting Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, The Four Deuces (talk) 19:48, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since you mentioned closing [4]. I have pointed out that he has been involved in the discussion and consensus standards make it clear that involved users are not to closed. The whole issue was over an involved user trying to close and impose sanctions. Also, other people have made it clear that only univolved users can have a voice in the discussions, and many of the oppose votes are nullified by their admittance of being involved. Could you please sort out these issues so there doesn't have to be yet another ANI thread because of an out of process push for such things? Ottava Rima (talk) 04:06, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Was he involved prior to this thread? Xavexgoem (talk) 04:07, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't matter. He was involved in the discussion and, like RfA, anyone involved in the discussion is not impartial to closing the discussion. You cannot voice an opinion and then be deemed impartial in determining the outcome. That is true of AfD, RfA, and every other process we have, and it is a major problem according to our standards. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:10, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So what you're saying is he wasn't involved prior to this thread? He would have no reason to be spiteful. Xavexgoem (talk) 04:11, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't a matter of being spiteful. What did I say that lead you to believe that spite was an issue in this? Also, at least four admin had expressed doubt as to the legitimacy of the entire process and either closed it or stated it should have been closed. This has been undone by involved users, and closing by an involved user would be highly inappropriate. Admin are not supposed to contradict other admin, especially when they are involved. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:12, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Was he involved in his capacity as an administrator? Because you gotta talk things through at AN/I to get to the bottom of things. Xavexgoem (talk) 04:15, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Comment: In my opinion, what should or should not be done with Ottava depends entirely on what what kind of encyclopedia we think we are building [...] --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 18:12, 3 November 2009 (UTC)"

Once he stated the above, he was no longer allowed to close the thread and make a decision about a sanction per the sanction protocols which state that an uninvolved user closes the discussion and makes a decision. Please read for more details from an Arbitrator explaining how they are determined. Please note, if these actions are upheld, the proper recourse is to ArbCom to ask for clarification on the matter, since any editing restriction is within their purview. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:21, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the thing, Ottava: You know my opinion on the matter; I posted it directly above your thread on his talk page. Now, you're saying that I couldn't make an opinion, since I'm involved because (A) I'm on Wikivoices, and hence speak with Durova reguarly, (B) I contributed to the thread, specifically to have it closed, and (C) I've communicated with Regentspark about this matter. Would you rather I unarchived the thread, then decided, hey, this is going nowhere (because it wouldn't be), and then archive it again with what I determined the consensus to be? (and the consensus may change, but you gotta ask yourself, dude, whether it's headin' in your favor).

Now, I can't do that, because I'm involved for asking admin-y questions on an admin board. The thread stays archived. Xavexgoem (talk) 04:26, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My statement here is because you posted there - I'm asking you to ask him to rescind his non-impartial close because I will have to appeal to ArbCom, and they would be looking at an admin who did the very problem that started this whole mess - which was violate our protocols and inappropriately determine something while being involved. It doesn't matter if it is "heading in my favor" or not. What matters is that people do not cut corners and go against our policies. Furthermore, the thing hasn't even been open for a day, so there is no way to declare anything, and I already pointed out on his talk page that he ignored many of the people that said the whole thing was either inappropriate or just wrong. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:29, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Xav, as you recommended I won’t reply to MarshalN20 directly as I don’t want to end up in a long threaded discussion. However I think that his interventions so far illustrate my problem and I think there are some things he mentioned in his last comment require some comments from me.

• He said “this hasn't been because we (as in me, Lupos, and Dentren) prevented any addition into the history section” while actually the reason why we are on Mediation right now is because each time I open my mouth or any other Bolivian intervene we get fiercely attacked by MarshalN20 as it can be seen here [5] [6] [7] I try to use the regular procedures for dispute resolution like the reliable sources noticeboard to get help to deal with the problem [8] and MarshalN20 comes aggressively to post accusations which aren’t even coherent but at the end prevent others to help [9], he even tried to intimidate me with attempts of outing [10]. That’s the reason I don’t edit the article because I feel I’m wasting my time because everything I do is reverted, I get insulted, I get denigrated it causes a big problem, MarshalN20 takes it to other boards he talks bad about me with other admins, like if I were committing a crime.
• Regarding the edition he mentions that I made, it was because I observed that many parts of the article are either WP:OR such as the drawing he also showed Image:Danzan san miguel 7 diablos.jpg it says Saint Michael and seven devils, there isn’t any publication where it says it’s related to the Diablada not even in the site from where it was taken, yet it’s used to fill the infobox and put guitar and other instruments that aren’t used in the Diablada. Also many parts what it’s written in the article does not correspond to the source quoted or when a Bolivian city is mentioned that information is hidden; that paragraph was an example the source [11] was quoted to mention Juli (the Peruvian city) but below it said “And in Potosí (Bolivian city) a dialog of faith was recited” I consider that it was unethical to hide that information, besides the Spanish priests by that year weren’t just a few they were many and had missions in many cities of the continent, the source isn’t saying that they were the same persons. And the “Regional Variations” part is also a big problem because it also falls into Original Research because some of those dances aren’t Diabladas, they are other dances that have their own name and aren’t related to the article, that section is a product of retaliation after a discussion we had about the definition of the Diablada.

Sorry for the length but I think those points should be clear before we continue. --Erebedhel - Talk 19:38, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ehh Xav I noticed you closed the mediation, I'm terribly sorry about that but now what will happen? What should I do about the article? --Erebedhel - Talk 03:28, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest Medcom. Xavexgoem (talk) 04:09, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok Xav, I'll fill a request then, thank you once more for your time. --Erebedhel - Talk 04:28, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have a suggestion to your comment on the talk page. // Gbern3 (talk) 17:25, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As you participated in the recent Audit Subcommittee election, or in one of two requests for comment that relate to the use of SecurePoll for elections on this project, you are invited to participate in the SecurePoll feedback and workshop. Your comments, suggestions and observations are welcome.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Risker (talk) 08:37, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed this new mediation cabal case, Race and Intelligence. It so happens that I am somewhat familiar with the academic literature, as my research is primarily on economics, education and development. I would also like to participate in order to observe how mediation is conducted, as I would like to volunteer as a mediator in the future.

Is it appropriate for me to sit in on the mediation and offer comments based on my expertise? If I can participate, how should I do so? Should I just comment on the page as I feel appropriate? I promise to be reticent and restrained in my comments, and will likely only comment briefly, if at all.

thanks, --LK (talk) 05:47, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I take it from your silence that you find that idea problematic. It's OK, I'll just sit in the sidelines and watch. --LK (talk) 18:33, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, sorry, I meant to get back to you. I've been spacing. What I recommend is not to add yourself to the list of parties -- not because you're not a party, but because you get a list that long and everything starts to get really intimidating. You're free to comment -- although I'd wait a bit till things get a little underway. Xavexgoem (talk) 18:39, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'm going to sit in, and will only comment if there is an issue that I find screamingly misconceived, or if there's one that I have especial knowledge of. Given how knowledgeable the participants involved are, you'll probably not hear a peep out of me throughout. best, --LK (talk) 07:01, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I found an irc app on my iPhone! What channels are you usually on?

Just note I won't be on for a while though. Cheers! Reubzz (talk) 13:04, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Medcab's channel is #wikipedia-medcab on freenode. I won't be on for a while, either, so no hurry. Xavexgoem (talk) 13:07, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We need to find some framework or objective procedure to get to a conclusion at some point in the Race/Intel mediation. I feel that the debates are just restarting in a new place (although calmer which is good progress), and if there is no definiate "timetable" or "method" that we follow, I don't see this getting anywhere soon. I would reccomend we issue some statement that lists the issues to be discussed in the forms of statements. These statements would be the bottom of the pyramid that would lead us to the top of the issue.

Facing the problem of "Should the Hereditarian viewpoint get coverage and if so, how much?" is not the best way to immediately start. Some parties have proposed good ideas to review the heart of the matter including the validity and reliability of sources involved, and reviewing other central (but not direct) issues.

Lastly, in the end we cannot just determine how much coverage the viewpoint can recieve. A series of mutual guidelines needs to be drawn up eventually about what the coverage would include (if included at all); this would avert future conflicts. Reubzz (talk) 01:25, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You need to tackle the smaller problems first. If it doesn't look like anything is getting done after a while, folks start to lose confidence. Prove first that something is getting done before going with a timetable. Xavexgoem (talk) 15:35, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Xavexgoem.

I am putting up essentially identical text on GrooveDog's page, just for full disclosure.

I was wondering what is going on with the mediation attempt that I initiated. I can see that it was relisted as new, and am curious as to what that indicates.

Considering that the problem has essentially exploded in complexity (with the addition of two more extremely contentious editors) since I initiated the mediation attempt, what do you think I should do? Should I include them in the mediation attempt? Should I withdraw my mediation request and see if equilibrium on the article can be reached with more voices? Should we simply continue as is?

This is an argument that is full of emotion and energy on what is essentially a very minor page (even in the Wikipedia Martial Arts project). So I can very much understand a certain reluctance to become involved in such a messy matter. Any advice would be greatly appreciated. Junzi (talk) 01:52, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I apoligize for not being able to be "fully into it", Junzi. Recently I've been very swamped IRL, having time onwiki mostly only for maintenance etc, and wasn't really able to have the concentration necessary to appropriately mediate your dispute. It has been "relisted", meaning that another member of the cabal should pick up where I left off. I hope that they can better help you. GrooveDog FOREVER 03:06, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your time and attention. Junzi (talk) 15:18, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you dropped by my medcab case a couple of weeks ago and Im hoping you can help me out. It seems our moderator User:Vicenarian has retired and our case is still ongoing. What do you recommend I do at this point? Thanks in advance. Bonewah (talk) 21:37, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As you know I am mediating a dispute on the article 'Race and Intelligence'. As I have noted near the bottom of the page, I have posted a deadline for final statements before I evaulate the issues and set out an agenda to work with. I would like to request that you protect the talk page for 48 hours to allow this to take its course.

Thanks and Cheers! --Reubzz (talk) 23:38, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Admn please make this important change < here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Carnatic_music&diff=326410889&oldid=326338697> to CM article that you have blocked. It will remove the unscientific statements from the article (attributing to god when real human Purandaradasa invented the music). The current owner of the article NcM is not permitting.

NOT NAADAPRIYA —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.212.4.121 (talk) 16:59, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a reliable source that says he invented the music? Xavexgoem (talk) 18:27, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Admn Xavexgoem :Based on information posted already by different editors of Wikipedia following are references.

1. Dr. Piero Scaruffi (international author on music books) in the article A Summary on Indian Music: 'The founder of Karnataka style is considered to be Purandara Daasa'. : [12]
2. Prof VSS Rao- 'Shri Puradara Daasa is known as the pra-pithamaha (founder) of modern Carnatic classical music.' [13]
3. Shri P.N.Krishnamoorthy – Director. [14] The Sangeetha Vidyalaya 'Purandara Dasa (1484 - 1584) can be said to be the principal founder of the Carnatic system as we know it today.'
4. Kamat Research Database : 'The Father of Carnatic Music Composer Purandaradasa (15/16th Century) was a great literary and musical genius. [15]
5. Independent group: 'Shri Purandara Daasa is known as the pra-pithamaha (founder) of modern Carnatic classical music.' [16]
6. In the book 'MS – A Life in Music' by TJS George. New Delhi: HarperCollins, 2005 (4th Impression).-ISBN 81-7223-527-5. '... the development of Carnatic music from the times of Purandara Dasa (1480-1564), considered to be the father of the genre'

(please see Music genre)

All wikipedia editors of Carnatic Music have unanimously agreed that Purandaradasa is Pitamaha ( meaning father in Kannada ) of Carnatic Music. In English to call someone the "father" of something means he created it, not merely enhanced it or popularized it . Therefore Purandaradasa is called either the creator or inventor or founder of todays Carnatic Music (Aka Karnataka Music).

Sir therefore please make the changes which many other editors tried but failed due to the action of current owner Ncmvocalist of the article

NOT NAADAPRIYA

Hi Xavexgoem, we went through an article RfC on Carnatic music, he was found to be a problem user, was topic banned by the community, and later site-banned for this sort of puppetry (see the relevant cat). If you need more details, please feel free to contact me. Cheers, Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:58, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Above mentioned RFC was terminated without completion [17] : NOT NAADAPRIYA

I feel I am being gang-up on by administrators after a dispute had been resolved. It seems now I am being harassed by them. Roger Zoel (talk) 22:13, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]