Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-03-06 Graham Mitchell

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Article:	Graham Mitchell
State:	Closed
Requested By:	Funkybear

Mediated By:	Snowolf

1 Mediation Case: 2007-03-06 Graham Mitchell

[edit] Mediation Case: 2007-03-06 Graham Mitchell

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.

[edit] Request Information

Request made by: Funkybear 01:58, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Where is the issue taking place?: ...

Who's involved?: several administrators, including Steel359

What's going on?: My article was deleted over and over and finally a block was put on the article name "Graham Mitchell". The problem is that not a single moderator responded to any of my 'hold on' requests or responded to my points/questions raised in the talk page. The reasons for deletion were inconsistent and inaccurate. For example, one admin deleted due to COI but Wikipedia's own COI page states that COI is not in itself grounds for deletion. When I point these things out to admins, they ignore me, or find another excuse (which I also disprove using Wikipedia's own definitions). It seems that the admins are not acting according to the Wikipedia spirit or rules. So who polices the police?

Update: Deletion review now available here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_March_6#.5B.5BGraham_Mitchell.5D.5D

What would you like to change about that?: I would like my article to be restored. If there are any genuine problems, I would like an admin to communicate this to me rather than immediate deletion.

Would you prefer we work discreetly? If so, how can we reach you?: You can reach me by email at tactaudiouser@yahoo.com

[edit] Mediator response

Maybe, before coming to the MedCab, you should file a Deletion review. If you've already filed one, which was unsuccesfully, fell free to change again the status of this MedCab case to new and I'll mediate it. Provide a link to the deletion review debate, in that case. Snowolf^(talk)_CON^COI - 02:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I see it now, thanks you. However, I have to point out that the deletion review ended with only you against the deletion, and on this ground, I don't think that there is something to mediate. This informal process cannot do nothing if a formal wikipedia policy (the deletion review) has already spoken so unanimously. Snowolf ^(talk) _CON ^COI - 16:46, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Compromise offers

This section is for listing and discussing compromise offers.

[edit] Discussion

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.

There must be some safeguard for situations when moderators are out of line. You can see from the review that some of the moderators posted rubbish, and when I challenged them, they disappeared. The strength of the argument must be what matters here, not the mere number of votes.

Incidentally one of the votes was from one of the admins agreeing with his own decision. This can hardly be seen as an objective decision. Funkybear 18:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

The admin Rossasmi seemed to be suggesting that the article could be submitted in another langauge, which I find confusing because I assume that the test of an article's merit does not depend on the language in which it is written. Funkybear 18:59, 11 March 2007 (UTC)