Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-12-06 Cat ownership

Wikipedia Mediation Cabal
Status	closed
Request date	Unknown
Mediator(s)	DMeyering, TheronJ

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

Mediation Case: 2006-12-06 Cat ownership

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

Request made by: Nique1287 19:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Where is the issue taking place?

Talk:Cat

Who's involved?

User:Olivierd, User:Katzenjammer User:Ramdrake, and myself, User:Nique1287. Others have contributed, but only the three named continue to discuss.

What's going on?

The discussion has stagnated and is over 35 KB in length; User:Olivierd maintains that the term "owner" should be replaced in all but the most literal of legal senses in the article to "caregiver" or "companion", while User:Ramdrake and User:Nique1287 continue to ask why, when it is obvious to them that, given the arguments given previously in the discussion, the terms should not be changed. All editors involved in the discussion are becoming pedantic, stubborn, and frustrated with not being heard. Also, I (User:Nique1287) have suggested that everyone take a break from the discussion, re-read what has been said, and try to come back with a fresh point of view, but User:Olivierd does not seem to have responded to that part of my reply and continues to debate his point, perhaps with more fervor than previously. (Update) User:Katzenjammer has rejoined the discussion, taking the same "side" as User:Olivierd and is making attack-like moves toward those defending the use of the term "owner".

What would you like to change about that?

Another, unaffiliated opinion, preferably one familiar with Wiki policies on terminology (i.e. common use, which is a common argument in this discussion), could help the discussion come to an end before it needs official help.

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

Whichever way you can do your work best. Discretion is not a priority, I just don't want the discussion to take a turn for the worse, as it seems very close to doing so.

Mediator response

I am interested in both cats and Wikipedia. I also have interesting viewpoints concerning the usage of the word "owner" pertaining to having a pet cat. However, I will keep these viewpoints to myself and merely try to create an atmosphere of understanding between the parties, reserving my opinions for a third party perspective only. Antimatter---talk--- 16:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• With a status summary like Antimatter's, how could I resist? I will co-mediate, or close the mediation if the parties are done. TheronJ 15:50, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I give you a lot of credit my friend, you must have a big heart. I thought this would be a harmless debate, but it turned out to be quite deadly. I actually think my explosion may have helped bring this debate to a close. How strange....in any case, be tactful...Antimatter---talk--- 21:57, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: I'll repeat what I said on the talk page, to the effect that I sent a note today to the two users who refused to see this debate as closed (user:Olivierd and user:Katzenjammer) to see if they could be amenable to considering this issue closed. I think I don't betray the majority by saying we all wish this issue closed. A 99k debate is way to much for anyone's apetite, IMHO.--Ramdrake 22:10, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Update: I am closing this mediation - the participants appear to have exhausted all possible discussion at this time and are agreeing to disagree. There doesn't seem to be a substantial risk of edit warring, and the article currently reflects the majority view and acknowledges that minority view, so that's not a terrible result, although obviously not as good as complete consensus. The minority opinion editors are reserving their right to restart the debate when appropriate and to continue to attempt to build a consensus around their position, which is certainly their right. Thanks go to DMeyering and to all the participants for tring to unravel the knot. For a more complete summary, see here. TheronJ 15:14, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad this one's being put to rest. Antimatter---talk--- 19:32, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Compromise offers

This section is for listing and discussing compromise offers.

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.