Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-02-10 Zhuangzi

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Request for cabal mediation 1.1 Request Information 1.2 Comments by others 1.3 Mediator response

[edit] Request for cabal mediation

[edit] Request Information

Request made by: Jiawen 23:33, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Where is the issue taking place?

Primarily at Talk:Zhuangzi, but it's about Zhuangzi.

Who's involved?

Me and User:Mel_Etitis.

What's going on?

Disagreement about several things:

* Some punctuation issues.

* One word-choice issue. Specifically: Do you "make" a translation or "do" a translation?

* Some article organization issues. Specifically: Should there be a section for Zhuangzi's influence on later thought?

* Whether or not Zhuangzi can be said to have influenced The Matrix, and if so, if that shows that Zhuangzi has had an impact on Western philosophy. He believes that The Matrix is not actually philosophy, and that Zhuangzi's influence on it is my own supposition. I disagree on both counts.

The over-arching issue, though, is that I think Mel Etitis has been capricious and antagonistic in reverting some of my edits. He, I think, believes my edits have been of negligible value. I believe that disputes should be asked about before reversion; he believes, I think, that it's okay to immediately revert things one sees as inaccurate or miswritten. (I'm trying to be neutral in representing his views, and therefore not arguing my own points from within his, but probably not doing a very good job.)

What would you like to change about that?

I'd like to get a neutral POV to discuss the issues with us and hopefully resolve this amicably.

If you'd prefer we work discreetly, how can we reach you?

I don't mind working in the open about this.

[edit] Comments by others

There's a disagreement about content which has lasted two days and involved two or three comments on each side. I've listed the article at RfC, which seems the better first step. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:08, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mediator response

I'm on it. Karmafist 12:11, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Well I suggest that you get off it. I've already given adequate reasons for mediation being unneeded. The RfC on the article, which was the correct step, has attracted a number of responses, and user:Jiawen hasn't contributed for about eleven days. It's a little surprising that you should have decided that accepting this case was a sensible move. Thre's no mention of it on Wikipedia:Requests for mediation; is this your personal desire to get involved in a case involving me? You'll have to wait for that pleasure, I'm afraid (for a very long time). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 20:26, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Mediation cabal has the historical design and right to accept cases from any arbitrary source, at any time, for any reason. Medcab mediators are expected to respect other process in place, but may deviate from it as is required, as long as this assists in mediating the case. Kim Bruning 10:21, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I hope I've represented my side of the argument pretty succinctly above. Are there specific points I should discuss in more detail?

I haven't written anything lately because, to be honest, Mel Etitis' comments were getting me so flustered and upset that I had to take a break from Wikipedia. I'm still not ready for a big argument, to be honest. Jiawen 08:37, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Again, there isn't a case. There had been a disagreement over the article, I placed the article at RfC, it attracted comments that agreed with my position, and the article has been stable for over a month. Jiawen's claim that his or her lack of activity there is merely because of the awful effect of my comments can be assessed by looking at those comments, which are still on the Talk page. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:19, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be intimating that your comments weren't hurtful to me. Well, they weren't hurtful; they made me upset and flustered, though. I am the person by far best qualified to make that judgment. Are you saying that I stayed away from Wikipedia for some other reason and am lying about it? Are you implying that my staying away from the Zhuangzi page somehow gives you an automatic victory? Jiawen 08:35, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

1. I'm saying that nothing in the content or tone of my comments justified your response, there or here.
2. I placed the article at RfC; it attracted a number of respones, which all agreed with my position and disagreed with yours. That's consensus-building, and is how Wikipedia works.
3. It's not about victory; I'm sorry that you see it in such confrontational terms. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:05, 30 March 2006 (UTC)