Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Kender/Archive002

Conditions

To avoid potential conflict and drama, I am proposing voluntary conditions for the duration of formal mediation:

Do not place new templates on related articles unless all parties agree they are appropriate.
Do not remove existing templates unless all parties agree they are resolved.
Do not nominate related articles for deletion, move, merge or redirect, unless clearly uncontroversial.
Do not undertake or propose significant changes to related articles without discussion and consensus prior to the changes.

Thoughts? Comments? Vassyana (talk) 12:08, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed.--Gavin Collins (talk) 12:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, provisionally; we ought to clarify which are related articles, as the disagreement goes beyond even the pretty long list on the RfM page. I'm also concerned that this wording suggests that Gavin can replace tags even where a number of other editors have agreed they are not appropriate (like the OR tag on Kender). SamBC(talk) 13:20, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would people agree to a ", broadly construed," following the "related articles"? Vassyana (talk) 13:34, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that would satisfy that point. SamBC(talk) 14:01, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. They seem like perfectly reasonable conditions to me. - Bilby (talk) 13:22, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. And if it would please the mediator and involved parties, later today I will find the time to put the cleanup templates back on the last version of the articles I redirected yesterday. BOZ (talk) 13:47, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have replaced Gavin's templates on 14 of the articles I redirected yesterday, as requested. BOZ (talk) 18:57, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like we have a majority agreement - are you waiting on comment from Ursa and Jeske? BOZ (talk) 03:41, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer to have everyone note their agreement before moving forward. It's best not to assume it will be agreeable before they've commented. Vassyana (talk) 13:15, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Should I sign on to this mediation attempt as an involved party? I'm another among many who's argued with Gavin over his use of tags in articles (several of which are mentioned in the RfM), though I haven't touched the Kender article. McJeff (talk) 17:40, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vassyana, unlike CSHunt, McJeff was one of the first people (if not the first) with whom I discussed the possibility of mediation. If there are not already too many involved parties, you may add him if you feel it appropriate. BOZ (talk) 04:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I originally thought I'd stay out of it considering that other users have been more involved in the actual content dispute than I have. But Gavin continues to post his "cease and desist" templates on my talk page [1], which prompted me to offer to get involved. McJeff (talk) 16:47, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would be best not to remove any of Gavin's templates during the mediation case, just to let the issue rest in the meantime. BOZ (talk) 17:11, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The only additions I currently intend to make is citations where I can, and I do not think these will make substantive changes or be controversial. Ursasapien (talk) 00:12, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed; I didn't have computer access until just now so apologies for the lateness (another factor is I live on the West Coast; it's almost 21:00 here!). -Jéské ^{(v^_^v E pluribus unum)} 03:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]