| Revision as of 20:57, 14 March 2012 editHibrido Mutante (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users607 edits →Ground rules and structure: John Searle← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 14:49, 9 September 2024 edit undoCewbot (talk | contribs)Bots7,730,602 editsm Maintain {{WPBS}}: 1 WikiProject template. Create {{WPBS}}.Tag: Talk banner shell conversion | ||
| (61 intermediate revisions by 27 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{WikiProject banner shell| | |||
| {{WikiProject Dispute Resolution}} | {{WikiProject Dispute Resolution}} | ||
| }} | |||
| <center>'''New sections at the bottom'''</center> | <center>'''New sections at the bottom'''</center> | ||
| {{Misplaced Pages:Mediation Cabal/Pagelist}}{{shortcut|WT:MEDCAB}}{{/Archivebox}} | {{Misplaced Pages:Mediation Cabal/Pagelist}}{{shortcut|WT:MEDCAB}}{{/Archivebox}} | ||
| <div style="margin-left:13px"> | <div style="margin-left:13px"> | ||
| {{ |
{{archives|banner=yes|list=|small=yes|prefix=|root=}} | ||
| {{clear}} | {{clear}} | ||
| {{Misplaced Pages ad exists|211|collapsed=no}} | |||
| == New Issue: Fluoride == | |||
| Tried you guys on IRC but nobody's there. This is a request for mediation on ] and ] topics with various editors. I got edit-warred on both topics, so stopped editing and switched to commenting on ], 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. ] (]) 19:33, 31 December 2011 (UTC) | |||
| : I think a good first step here is for everyone involved to ]. Then, maybe open a RfC (Request for Comment) for larger community input on the dispute, or alternatively, request a ]. 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 ]. Hope everything can be resolved. Cheers, ] (]) 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, ] (]) 03:52, 2 January 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == |
== Proposal to close MedCab == | ||
| See discussion at ]. Please post any comments there, not here, to keep the discussion co-located. --] (]) 00:09, 30 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| 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 ), 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 ]. 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. | |||
| == There Is No Cabal (TINC) == | |||
| Let's make sure for future cases, we follow a different path. Just my two cents, ] (]) 20:46, 8 January 2012 (UTC) | |||
| For those who might suspect that there is a Cabal (TINC): | |||
| :Yeah, ] 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. <font face="Verdana">] ] <sup>]</sup></font> 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... ] (]) 01:47, 9 January 2012 (UTC) | |||
| '''There Is No Cabal.''' We talked about this at last week's Super Secret Cabal Meeting, and every cabal member there agreed that There Is No Cabal. There was a write-up about it in last month's issue of ''Cabalist: The Official Cabal Newsletter'' titled <ins>Cabal Board of Directors agrees: There Is No Cabal</ins>. The sign on Cabal Towers in downtown Manhattan says "There Is No Cabal". What more proof do you need? | |||
| :::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. | |||
| See and for more information. --] (]) 12:38, 6 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::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: | |||
| :So what you're not saying is that there isn't definitely not a cabal that doesn't not ''not'' exist? ] ('']'') 07:53, 7 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::"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." | |||
| ::You know what I always say; follow the sources. '''''' is a reliable source that should clear everything up. And if it doesn't, then '''''' will. --] (]) 08:21, 7 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::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. <small>'''<span style="color:Olive">Waleswatcher</span>''' ]</small> 13:54, 9 January 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::My God! This changes <s>everything</s> nothing! ] (]) 08:37, 7 August 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 ], 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? — <b style="text-shadow:0.15em 0.15em 0.1em #555; color: #194D00; font-style: oblique; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">] <sup>]</sup></b> 17:15, 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. <small>'''<span style="color:Olive">Waleswatcher</span>''' ]</small> 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 ] and the ]. Best — <b style="text-shadow:0.15em 0.15em 0.1em #555; color: #194D00; font-style: oblique; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">] <sup>]</sup></b> 19:11, 9 January 2012 (UTC) | |||
| {{outdent|7}} | |||
| 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 , 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, ] (]) 19:42, 9 January 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *For what its worth, I posted 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. <font face="Verdana">] ] <sup>]</sup></font> 19:54, 9 January 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::No need to call me your God. "Guy" will do. :) --] (]) 00:14, 11 September 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.) | |||
| :::::Obviously this is either true or not. <b>]</b>\] 08:46, 11 September 2012 (UTC) | |||
| 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. ] (]) 00:44, 11 January 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ⚫ | ::::::Or both. Or Neither. It's a Zen Thing. --] (]) 17:12, 11 October 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. <small>'''<span style="color:Olive">Waleswatcher</span>''' ]</small> 18:44, 11 January 2012 (UTC) | |||
| Not an update: Since ], the annual ] cocktail party and meet 'n greet did not successfully take place on June 1 (and Jimmy does not say "Hi!" to those who could not not attend, you didn't miss a great time). Please remember that the meetings for year 8746 will not take place as planned on the ] and ] at, respectively, ], ], ], and ] and that the Glastonbury meeting will not, as usual, require full ] and ] and that loaner robes <small>(Iggy, this means ''you'')</small> will not be available. The private jets will not pick you up at the regular places and times. Best regards and obeisances, ] (]) 18:10, 11 October 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 ], and we can take things from there. Best — <b style="text-shadow:0.15em 0.15em 0.1em #555; color: #194D00; font-style: oblique; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">] <sup>]</sup></b> 00:31, 12 January 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :As the nonexistent ] for people (all of whom are not part of any kind of ]) did not have an unexpectedly large number of attendees, I will not be assisting in the arrangement of the ] breakfast for benefit of only ]. I have not suggested any locations that no one else could think of such as the ] or somesuch. There is no way to ] to this event as it does not exist- to reiterate a common theme here- ]. -] (]) 04:20, 6 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ===Fix going forward=== | |||
| == Complaint == | |||
| I've boldly made two changes in the mediator suggestions (the most important part of which is actually the last sentence) and in the case listing template to try to help to avoid this issue in the future. What do you think? Best regards, ] (]) 21:11, 9 January 2012 (UTC) | |||
| But on a serious note, is there really no one who can mediate when a user has been pre-emptively "straw-man"ed so many times to Admins that they keep closing without resolution his attempts to find mediation that no one is prepared to look at his side of the story? :( ] 19:13, 14 September 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :Works for me. <font face="Verdana">] ] <sup>]</sup></font> 21:33, 9 January 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :Second. ] (]) 00:25, 10 January 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :Good idea. ] <sup>(] • ])</sup> 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. ] <sup>(] • ])</sup> 20:33, 10 January 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :Kaz, this project is inactive so you are wasting your time even more here than in the half dozen other discussions you have opened about this. ] (]) 03:10, 15 September 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == Inactive status boxes == | |||
| ::The interesting thing is that, in general, Misplaced Pages administrators are very much on the lookout for any admins who violate our policies. Nobody wants that. If Kaz had actual evidence, he could take it to ] and the problem would be dealt with. Otherwise, this is almost certainly another case of "Whenever someone cries out 'admin abuse!,' it is usually the admin who is being abused." So can we get back to our silly Cabal (TINC) jokes, please? --] (]) 09:26, 15 September 2012 (UTC) | |||
| 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! ] (]) 19:07, 24 January 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == |
== There definitely is no cabal == | ||
| I'd just like to point out that ] does not, and never will, exist — just so people know, of course. --] ] 21:05, 3 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
| Please see the ] which I have boldly added to the Mediation policy. Best regards, ] (]) 18:13, 10 February 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :There Is No Cabal (TINC). We discussed this at the last cabal meeting, and everyone agreed that there is no cabal. An announcement was made in ''Cabalist: The Official Newsletter of The Cabal'' making it clear that there is no cabal. The words "There Is No Cabal" are in ten-foot letters on the side of the international cabal headquarters, and we show a disclaimer that there is no cabal at the start of every program on the Cabal Network. If that's not enough to convince people that there is no cabal, I don't know what will. --] (]) 02:37, 30 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
| == Guidance, please == | |||
| I was wondering if I could have a bit of guidance and input from fellow mediators. I am currently mediating ] on the Falklands War; specifically, how the British leadership of the war should be expressed the infobox. The dispute was previously discussed at ], then briefly at ]. 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. ] has challenged my perception of this consensus, raising the issue ]. 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. ] <sup>(] • ])</sup> 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, ] (]) 18:12, 17 February 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::I respectfully disagree, M'Lord. (Sorry, it's a holdover from my old ] days. ]) Indeed, I believe that the ''first'' thing we must do when considering a dispute <small>(with no criticism intended towards ItsZippy)</small>, whether here or at one of the other DR forums, is to determine whether or not it's being brought to us as ]. 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 ] 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, ] (]) 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. :) ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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 .) Regards, ] (]) 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. ] <sup>(] • ])</sup> 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. :-) <font face="Verdana">] ] <sup>]</sup></font> 20:59, 27 February 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :As you're advertising advice, I was wondering if you got ]? ] <sup>(] • ])</sup> 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. :) ] (]) 21:37, 27 February 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::It's always good to have it structured ;) ''''']''''' <small>] <span style="font-weight:bold;">·</span> ]</small> | ] 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 :-) <font face="Verdana">] ] <sup>]</sup></font> 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 ]. 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. — <b style="text-shadow:0.15em 0.15em 0.1em #555; color: #194D00; font-style: oblique; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">] <sup>]</sup></b> 06:15, 28 February 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == John Searle == | |||
| I've open a case here http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/07_March_2012/ . | |||
| 23:49, 12 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| Have I done something wrong? | |||
| Thanks | |||
| --] (]) 20:57, 14 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 14:49, 9 September 2024
 | This project page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
 The Mediation Cabal | ||
| Main page | Current cases | Suggestions |
 Central discussion
| ||
|
 Archives |
|---|
|
|
Archives: no archives yet (create) |
Proposal to close MedCab
See discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Mediation_Committee#Close_MedCab. Please post any comments there, not here, to keep the discussion co-located. --Noleander (talk) 00:09, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
There Is No Cabal (TINC)
For those who might suspect that there is a Cabal (TINC):
There Is No Cabal. We talked about this at last week's Super Secret Cabal Meeting, and every cabal member there agreed that There Is No Cabal. There was a write-up about it in last month's issue of Cabalist: The Official Cabal Newsletter titled Cabal Board of Directors agrees: There Is No Cabal. The sign on Cabal Towers in downtown Manhattan says "There Is No Cabal". What more proof do you need?
See and for more information. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:38, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
- So what you're not saying is that there isn't definitely not a cabal that doesn't not not exist? Xavexgoem (tinc) 07:53, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
- You know what I always say; follow the sources. here is a reliable source that should clear everything up. And if it doesn't, then this one will. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:21, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
- My God! This changes
everythingnothing! Xavexgoem (talk) 08:37, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
- My God! This changes
- No need to call me your God. "Guy" will do. :) --Guy Macon (talk) 00:14, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
- Obviously this is either true or not. Inter\ 08:46, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
- Or both. Or Neither. It's a Zen Thing. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:12, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
Not an update: Since there is no cabal, the annual Bilderberg cocktail party and meet 'n greet did not successfully take place on June 1 (and Jimmy does not say "Hi!" to those who could not not attend, you didn't miss a great time). Please remember that the meetings for year 8746 will not take place as planned on the solstices and equinoxes at, respectively, Ayers Rock, Glastonbury Tor, Easter Island, and Fajada Butte and that the Glastonbury meeting will not, as usual, require full robes and regalia and that loaner robes (Iggy, this means you) will not be available. The private jets will not pick you up at the regular places and times. Best regards and obeisances, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:10, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
- As the nonexistent slumber party for people (all of whom are not part of any kind of tomfoolery) did not have an unexpectedly large number of attendees, I will not be assisting in the arrangement of the pancake breakfast for benefit of only no one, no one at all. I have not suggested any locations that no one else could think of such as the Red Pyramid or somesuch. There is no way to RSVP to this event as it does not exist- to reiterate a common theme here- there is totally no cabal of any kind. -Coriander (talk) 04:20, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Complaint
But on a serious note, is there really no one who can mediate when a user has been pre-emptively "straw-man"ed so many times to Admins that they keep closing without resolution his attempts to find mediation that no one is prepared to look at his side of the story? :( Kaz 19:13, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
- Kaz, this project is inactive so you are wasting your time even more here than in the half dozen other discussions you have opened about this. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:10, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
- The interesting thing is that, in general, Misplaced Pages administrators are very much on the lookout for any admins who violate our policies. Nobody wants that. If Kaz had actual evidence, he could take it to WP:ANI and the problem would be dealt with. Otherwise, this is almost certainly another case of "Whenever someone cries out 'admin abuse!,' it is usually the admin who is being abused." So can we get back to our silly Cabal (TINC) jokes, please? --Guy Macon (talk) 09:26, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
There definitely is no cabal
I'd just like to point out that Misplaced Pages:Mediation Cabal 2.0 does not, and never will, exist — just so people know, of course. --Tristessa (talk) 21:05, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- There Is No Cabal (TINC). We discussed this at the last cabal meeting, and everyone agreed that there is no cabal. An announcement was made in Cabalist: The Official Newsletter of The Cabal making it clear that there is no cabal. The words "There Is No Cabal" are in ten-foot letters on the side of the international cabal headquarters, and we show a disclaimer that there is no cabal at the start of every program on the Cabal Network. If that's not enough to convince people that there is no cabal, I don't know what will. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:37, 30 January 2016 (UTC)