Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2005-12-25 image deletion
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Request for cabal mediation
[edit] Initial request
- Request made by: KittenKlub 22:23, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
- Where is the issue taking place?
On my talk page User_talk:KittenKlub
- Who's involved?
- What's going on?
On December 20, I nominated an image for deletion because I doubted the public domain claim. The user replied, and the next day, he removed the nomination, so I issued him with a warning and told him not to remove it again. He removed this from his talk page twice, and issued me with a warning today.
- What would you like to change about that?
- He wants to take revenge in one way or another. I'd like the warning deleted from my page and a moderator to tell him to behave, because up to now he just took revenge.
- If you'd prefer we work discreetly, how can we reach you?
- ...
[edit] Comments by others
[edit] Mediator response
Investigating the issue, will post findings here shortly. Rob Church Talk 21:11, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
- Both users contacted, will proceed when I've feedback from them both. Rob Church Talk 21:30, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Notes
The image concerned is Image:OORLOG BEWERKT 5.JPG.
- 21:54, 12 November 2005 - Sandertje uploads Image:OORLOG BEWERKT 5.JPG
- 21:29, 20 December 2005 - KittenKlub tags the image as a PUI
- 21:32, 20 December 2005 - KittenKlub informs Sandertje of the nomination for deletion
- 21:21, 21 December 2005 - KittenKlub responds to Sandertje on Sander's talk page and the Image Deletion page that he doesn't believe "NIOD" is an acceptable excuse, nor a PD qualifier [1]
- 13:46, 22 December 2005 - For blanking the PUI entry for December 20, KittenKlub warns Sandertje on his talk page
- 21:50, 25 December 2005 - Sandertje adds a warning to KittenKlub's talk page
- 21:13, 28 December 2005 - Sandertje posts 2 messages with proof of legitimacy of the pictures.Although the proof is rock hard, Kittenklub chooses to continue the discussion.That is increasingly beginning look as if it were a personal feud.
- 19:15, 11 January 2006 (UTC) - Sandertje issued another warning. Both warnings are deleted by me also since this mediation is going nowhere and I fail to see the use of the mediation cabal when no attempts are made by the mediator. As far as I am concerned this mediation has failed given the fact that nothing is done. All communication with Sandertje will be removed on sight from my talk pages. KittenKlub 19:16, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
________________________________________________________________________________________
Kittenklub is trying to get away from what he did, by placing his warning in the archives.That's rather unfair of her/him, since when I deleted her/his nonsensical warnings I got another, and another ... not very brave kittenklub.
Sandertje 21:28, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Mediation closed
Since this is nothing but nonsense because it seems like it just a position to gratify to ego of so called mediators who do nothing at all when handed a request. KittenKlub 23:55, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Rob Church is hereby dismissed as not qualifying for his position. KittenKlub 23:57, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Mediation reopened
Kittenklub wanted to solve a problem, and issued a mediation.Now that it's not working out the way he planned, he'closes it' as if he's got that right in the first place.
This conflict is far from over and I would like to ask RobChurch to stick around and keep up the good work!
Sandertje 17:07, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
