Wikipedia Mediation Cabal
Status	closed
Request date	Unknown
Comment	close?

[[Category:Wikipedia Medcab closed cases|]][[Category:Wikipedia medcab maintenance|]]

Request Information

Request made by: Tim Smith 22:46, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the issue taking place?

At Uncommon Dissent.

Who's involved?

FeloniousMonk, Guettarda, myself, and to a lesser extent other editors at the article.

What's going on?

During the last month and a half, users have removed citation requests, reverted to unsourced claims, reversed uncontroversial changes, reverted without discussion, failed to assume good faith, exhibited incivility, and are now removing dispute tags.

What would you like to change about that?

I'd like the users to avoid breaches of Wikiquette and engage constructively so that we can work together to bring the article into compliance with WP:V and WP:NPOV.

Would you prefer we work discreetly? If so, how can we reach you?

On my talk page is fine.

Mediator response

We can't really force them to discuss. Once you get them talking to you, we can mediate. If you can't do that, I will have to close this case. --Ideogram 02:00, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I move to close the case. TheRingess (talk) 19:42, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Closing. --Ideogram 20:02, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Compromise offers

Discussion

This is the one and only time and place I am going write this, so please pay attention. As a neutral observer who has always been fascinated by the search for understanding about our universe, I naturally prefer objectivity and unemotional data analysis over hyperbole and cherry-picking narratives. I don't take sides because "sides" are the fringe of the whole. The Wikipedia articles on "evolution vs. intelligent design" and the editorial way that Wikipedia is being used to manufacture a position on the issue both strike me as obviously biased and certainly not in compliance with anything resembling a "neutral point of view." I have never deeply examined Wikipedia before, but I have occasionally used its pages to look up information quickly for an overview or to make use of human-collected relevant links. Upon first encountering the overt plague of slant on this topic, I was astonished. Wasn't Wikipedia supposed to be objective? Pfft! So I began to examine what was going on behind the pages, the discussions, disputes, and the Byzantine bylaws and rules governing who has the final say on the content of the pages. I was also keeping an eye out for some kind of forum to make my observation and comment known. Despairingly, I have come to realize that a complex hierarchy of patently non-neutral parties are at work here, and I do mean work. The amount of time and effort that the keepers of these pages would have to devote to their "cause" to bring about such a uniformity of bias would seem to border on obsession, which does help to explain the overt bias, but provides little hope that the mystical NPOV will ever be attained. I will henceforth view Wikipedia only as a playground for tiny tyrants, and I will share this observation with whoever asks for my opinion on the value of the organization. It is obvious, and I am sure I am not alone to find it to be a serious strain on the credibility of the idea that the Wikipedia rules system can ever achieve what it purports to strive for. One further edit: I believe I may have conceived of a possible solution to this problem. If any employee of wikipedia.org is interested in the idea, please leave this message intact along with a reply that includes a contact address.