Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Walabio and Jakew

Mediation involving: Walabio (talk • contribs) and Jakew (talk • contribs)

Mediator: Sam Korn (talk • contribs) sam DOT korn AT gmail DOT com

Mediation begun 20:48, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Initial request for mediation

gliding action & foreskin — a certain user tries to pawn off people not liking phimosis as people not liking gliding action on gliding action and on foreskin, the same use claims the the præpuce gives no erogenous sensation and that the præpuce protects against heat cold, mechanical, et cetera, to such structures as the glans, meatus, frænulum, its own inner smooth and ridge mucosa, et cetera. I tried to resolve this with sources and arguments as well as RfCs, but to no avail. — — Ŭalabio‽ 00:00, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Iff the other party is named and declares themself willing to participate, I will take this on. Remember that mediation is about resolving disputes, not punishing others or forcing someone else's hand. [[Sam Korn]] 18:07, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Jake Waskett for reasons I shall not explain, believes that all præpucii should be amputated. He continually reverts everything which makes the præpuce seem like a good thing or makes [[human genital mutilation seem like a bad thing unless he must admit it is true.. To use an example, it is like having to cite evidence that soap makes water wetter. After citing sources showing that soap makes water wetter, he usually rejects the source. He comes up with odd sources supporting his claims such as quotations about phimosis as evidence that some people do not like gliding action. Even after finding for him a quotation unambiguously supporting his claim I did his homework for him) he still insists on using his quotation. Trying to prove that the world is round and continuously reverting is just not fun. — — Ŭalabio‽ 01:14, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- If you could also say what you hope the outcome of the mediation to be, I'd be grateful. Also, where is the dispute? [[Sam Korn]] 18:30, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - A good outcome would be that when presented with reliable sources, he would accept them rather than just revert. — — Ŭalabio‽ 01:14, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Hello Sam. Thank you for your message. I'd be happy to take part in mediation, and have no objection to you mediating.
- I note that the type of mediation has not been specified. Nor has a desired outcome been expressed that can be measured in terms that Walabio and I agree upon (as noted on talk pages, the problem so far has been the lack of conformance with reliable source policy. Hence, as far as I'm concerned, when presented with reliable sources, I do accept them.
- Walabio also misrepresents things in his request. He has raised no RfC, to my knowledge. Jakew 18:53, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Aim of mediation

Before we go about the mediation proper, I want to set out where the case is going to go.

First, I would like you both to refrain from reverting each other. This is to foster good-will between the two of you. Your preferred version may not currently be up, but see m:The Wrong Version for a humourous enterpretation of why this is necessary. This is wholly a gesture of good will. I'm not going to block you or anything like that if you don't comply (indeed, while mediating this dispute I won't block either of you), but I want to get this mediation off on a friendly foot.

Secondly, I want to set out the goals of the mediation. I want to know what articles we are mediating over. I need to know what parts of these articles we are mediating over. I need to know why we are mediating over them. I would like us to decide that here please, as soon as possible. Please don't be verbose or go into detail about what each other has been doing; just lay out what you want to mediate over.

Process of mediation

After this, I want to hear basically what has happened so far in the dispute. Again, I don't want reams upon reams of discussion, so if you can be reasonably succinct while still being fairly complete I'll be happy. Depending on what you prefer, you can either both post your statements here or we can do this by email.

After this, I shall put together a statement of the dispute, so that we can all see where we are standing. I shall then suggest a way forwards in the mediation proper.

If you have any suggestions or complaints, I am always happy to hear them. Good luck! [[Sam Korn]] 20:48, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As Walabio requested this mediation, I will wait for him to state his position before I respond. However, I would like to take opportunity to expand on my statement above and object to his misrepresentation of the facts. I specifically object to: "Jake Waskett for reasons I shall not explain, believes that all præpucii should be amputated." As can be seen clearly on my user page, this is not the case. I do not consider it helpful or respectful to misrepresent things. Jakew 21:15, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I understand you feel offended by these statements. However, I request that you follow Wikipedia's sound advice to assume good faith. Assume that Walabio got this impression of you through a common failure to communicate well. In my experience, this is the most common cause of disputes, both on and off the wiki. Indeed, the primary task of mediation is getting the two of you talking properly again. So I ask that you bear perceived insults for the time being in the hope that this will help you settle your differences and work for the good of Wikipedia. We will attempt to work through these differences later. In the mean time, please do state where you would like the mediation to focus. It won't be successful if you think about it as Walabio vs Jakew: you need to consider it as Walabio and Jakew, working together. [[Sam Korn]] 23:40, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]