Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-06-18 Cursed Newsgroup - self-published source?
| Wikipedia Mediation Cabal | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Article | Curse |
| Status | closed |
| Request date | Unknown |
| Requesting party | Ste4k (talk · contribs) |
| Mediator(s) | Grobertson (talk · contribs) |
| Comment | On hold, possibly dead, as the primary party has been permablocked. |
[[Category:Wikipedia Mediation Cabal closed cases|Curse]][[Category:Wikipedia Mediation Cabal maintenance|Curse]]
Mediation Case: 2006-06-18 Cursed Newsgroup - self-published source?
[edit]Please observe Wikipedia:Etiquette and Talk Page Etiquette in disputes. If you submit complaints or insults your edits are likely to be removed by the mediator, any other refactoring of the mediation case by anybody but the mediator is likely to be reverted. If you are not satisfied with the mediation procedure please submit your complaints to Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal.
Request Information
[edit]- Request made by: Ste4k 22:37, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
- Where is the issue taking place?
- Who's involved?
- What's going on?
Walking the very fine line of verifiability. The discrepency involves an interpretation of the guidelines and whether a group of people over time may credibly refer to themselves even though the medium which they use is UseNet. The matter concerns a curse which is believed to exist by those people. Should those people be considered self-published references to themselves?
- What would you like to change about that?
Verifiability should be decided upon, by other people.
- Would you prefer we work discreetly? If so, how can we reach you?
The discussion in Curse:talk is fine.
Mediator response
[edit]I'll try to help out. Grobertson 13:44, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
- If one of the parties has been permanently banned, that means this case can be closed, simply because it cannot continue. Jsw663 19:32, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Compromise offers
[edit]This section is for listing and discussing compromise offers.
Discussion
[edit]While using the talk page of the article in question to solve a dispute is encouraged to involve a larger audience, feel free to discuss the case below if that is not possible. Other mediators are also encouraged to join in on the discussion as Wikipedia is based on consensus.
- Unfortunately, I think I have too many time commitments to properly take this case on as a mediator, at the moment, but I will probably be keeping an eye on things to see how it develops. Luna Santin 09:26, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
- Ste4k has subsequently been banned, and the article was unprotected without incident. I think this case can safely be closed. Zetawoof(ζ) 15:32, 30 August 2006 (UTC)