From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Decline of Buddhism in India mediation 1.1 Greetings from Freedom skies 1.2 Talk with Freedom skies from my main talk page 1.2.1 Freedom skies is wrapping up projects 1.3 Reply by Tigeroo to my offer to mediate 1.4 Freedom skies' reasons for the reversion

[edit] Decline of Buddhism in India mediation

Case page: Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-12-26 Decline of Buddhism in India (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

[edit] Greetings from Freedom skies

Y'know, I was reading Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows and Spider-Man 3 (two topics which interest me greatly) and I'm grateful that good editors contributing to articles like those are around. Compare that with monstrosities (forgive the strong language) like the Yi Jin Jing (another topic which interests me greatly) or the-prior-to-my-involvement Decline of Buddhism in India article. I've never been in contact with you so I can't say that I'm not going to be a bit apprehensive, especially since the last person who edited in between did this. Kindly read it for my problems with the editor in question. I do, however, honor your right to edit and welcome you to this article. I'll look forward to your contributions and accept you as an editor. Juggling college, boxing and the holidays have taken a toll on my Wikipedia contributions so I won't be sticking around all that much. Kindly just refer to this for my version of what needs to be done. Thanks, Cheers and a Happy New Year. _{Freedom skies| talk}  17:41, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you - I will add your acceptance to the case. I gained the impression from User talk:Tigeroo#Hi Tigeroo that Nina is happy now, so I don't see why the old case should influence me. Actually, At this time, I'm not even sure if the requestor still wants to uphold the mediation. Do you feel it should continue?

If we need to continue with the mediation, how about if we all contribute to a table similar the following:

Issue	wording proposed by party A	goals this wording is trying to achieve	wording proposed by party B	goals this wording is trying to achieve
(Just a name so we can refer to it. Needs to be agreed by both parties.)	row 1, cell 2	row 1, cell 3	row 1, cell 4	row 1, cell 5

I'm really impressed by the changes in Decline of Buddhism in India (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) during the last month - so much has changed that it's hard to compare the versions. Would you like to highlight some of the changes (diffs) you are most proud of? I will look at the Neutrality Review Requests later. Do you feel the people who contributed there should be included in the mediation? — Sebastian 20:50, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

---

My apologies for the delayed reply. I think you should just go ahead and work on the "encyclopedic language" part of the article. The parties involved may not be able to sufficiently deal with that particular aspect as they have strong opinions of their own. Your work on improving the the article's tone will actually end the entire "dispute" if you chose to undertake it.

The article now has good sources and basically correct information. It's the manner of representation that is fraught with grammatical errors, incessant repititions and strong language.

If you could find the time to see to the repititions being removed (I've done most of it though), the spelling/grammer aspect checked (to some extent, I have taken care of that as well) and the "enclyclopedic language" taken care of then you would have solved this entire NPOV issue, singlehandedly.

An experienced (and neutral) newcomer's attempts will not meet with doubts by the parties involved and as soon as the plentiful information in the article gets bolstered by proper representation, the tags will become unnessasary.

What am I proud of in this article ? Compare the number of citations before (the article did'nt even have a references/notes section) and after. I added most of those references in the Notes section.

_{Freedom skies| talk}  21:33, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

No problem about the delay. That was still quick enough - the requestor has not replied yet. It's a slow time of the year! I have the following questions for you:

1. Do you accept me as a mediator?
2. As far as you are concerned, does this still require mediation?
3. You mention the page needs "encyclopedic language" editing. This seems to require an editor, not a mediator, or am I misunderstanding you?
4. The Neutrality Review Requests lists a few more editing problems, but no NPOV problem. Do you see any NPOV problems that require mediation? If so, can you please be specific?
5. Do you feel it would help resolve the case if the people who contributed to the Neutrality Review Requests were included in the mediation?
6. I don't understand what you mean by "I've never been in contact with you so I can't say that I'm not going to be a bit apprehensive, especially since the last person who edited in between did this". (This may hinge on the words "edited in between".) If this is relevant for the mediation, can you please explain it to me?

Thank you! — Sebastian 06:38, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Talk with Freedom skies from my main talk page

1. Do you accept me as a mediator?

Yes.

2. As far as you are concerned, does this still require mediation?

Tigeroo is back, so Yes.

3. You mention the page needs "encyclopedic language" editing. This seems to require an editor, not a mediator, or am I misunderstanding you?

Unilateral editor, both sides can present their problems with him once you're done. In all events, a once-over by an experienced, neutral editor will benifit both sides.

4. The Neutrality Review Requests lists a few more editing problems, but no NPOV problem. Do you see any NPOV problems that require mediation? If so, can you please be specific?

Well, Tigeroo keeps reverting any mention of Islam and mentions any Hindu action thrice or more (copy-paste in the same article). A repitition check will take care of simply everything. My version is relatively free from repititions (of any POV) though.

My opinion, kindly see to it that unnessesary repitition of any POV does not occur.

5. Do you feel it would help resolve the case if the people who contributed to the Neutrality Review Requests were included in the mediation?

One of them backed out and said she does not research thoroughly and the other editor I leave to your scrutiny. I would still urge a unilateral once over though, the parties involved should welcome it.

6. I don't understand what you mean by "I've never been in contact with you so I can't say that I'm not going to be a bit apprehensive, especially since the last person who edited in between did this". (This may hinge on the words "edited in between".) If this is relevant for the mediation, can you please explain it to me?

Oh, I was a bit apprehensive as the editors involved have been known to repeat both mistakes and resort to insseant reverts. Not an issue.

_{Freedom skies| talk}  15:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your thorough reply! I now understand your proposal of a "unilateral editor" or "unilateral once over", and I see how that would address your concerns, and I see the connection with #6. This could become a compromise offer. However, I'm sorry that I'm not the experienced editor you're looking for; I'm only a mediator. So we would have to find one. How could we go about it? Maybe we could look for other editors who previously contributed to this or related articles who could be endorsed by both parties? Moreover, how can we ensure that this is a lasting solution - the fishing rod, and not just the fish?

Where would you like to discuss this? I want to move this away from my talk page because it gets too complicated when the discussion is spread out over several pages. An obvious choice would be case talk page. Or we could use e-mail; a private conversation can be more effective because partners don't have to weigh every word. — Sebastian 18:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

The following headline has been inserted for easier reference.

[edit] Freedom skies is wrapping up projects

I would appreciate e-mail contact. Please forgive my delays for the coming few days, I have just about a few projects to wrap up before I can wholeheartedly devote my time here. Real life, too seems to be intent on not allowing me to contribute as much time to Wikipedia as I would like to. I ask only for three or four days more and then I should be able to involve myself thoroughly in the discussion towards a solution under your mediation efforts.

On a completely unrelated topic, a once over for the benefit of encyclopedic language and removal of repititions will be very beneficial. This only needs someone versed in Wikipedia policies and english, both of which I feel are your strengths. Regards. _{Freedom skies| talk}  19:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. As for the time, could you please write that on the mediation talk page so Tigeroo knows about it, too? Regarding the other points, I will e-mail you. — Sebastian 19:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reply by Tigeroo to my offer to mediate

Sorry was not around the holidays also was taking a wikibreak to distance myself from getting too caught up.

Sure, I think it will require mediation as there is a lot more to add to the article atm. I think the table is a good idea, I will use it get the ideas over.

The more people non-involved people engaged, I think it becomes easier to develop a concensus:

Thanks for joining us.--Tigeroo 16:37, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! I'll update the case page! — Sebastian 04:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Freedom skies' reasons for the reversion

The version to which I reverted actually does cover all of the issues that Tigeroo has bought to the table. He fixed them on his own and then additionally listed them in the discussion. Now we have the version which corresponds to the list he bought to the discussion and the version which he unilaterally "corrected" on his own without any consenseus whatsoever. _{Freedom skies| talk}  19:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I see. That might explain why he seems to be so disinterested in explaining his goals now. I think the fairest solution would be if you could simply write "agree", "disagree - will explain" or "disagre - see discussion" (meaning the discussion of the issue on the discussion page). Once you're done, I will go through the diff and revert all "acute" changes (i.e. changes that have been made after I activated the mediation) that are not sufficiently explained, and I will post a note about this on the mediation page and alert the other party on his talk page. — Sebastian 20:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)