Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-06-21 Dion Fortune

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Mediation Case: 2006-06-21 Dion Fortune 1.1 Request Information 1.2 Mediator response 1.3 Evidence 1.4 Compromise offers 1.5 Discussion

[edit] Mediation Case: 2006-06-21 Dion Fortune

[edit] Request Information

Request made by: Morgan Leigh 03:16, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Where is the issue taking place?

Dion Fortune

Who's involved?

User talk:Morgan Leigh and User talk:67.185.57.48

What's going on?

User 67.185.57.48 is continually editing the Dion Fortune page in an erroneous manner claiming that previous longstanding edits are not factually correct and that Dion Fortune is an "historical crackpot". I have provided references supporting the info on the page but this user rejects the validity of these references preferring abuse instead. This user argues at great length over small things e.g. the use of the term magnum opus regarding Fortune's book "The Mystical Qabbalah".

Also this user edits the discussion page for this article and user talk pages and starts their edits in the middle of other's edits and deletes, reformats or edits other user's previous posts. IMHO this users actions constitute vandalism and I note that this user has been banned for vandalism and abuse previously (not for the same page but for the Adolf Hitler page), although they have removed all information pertaining to said bans from their talk page.

I have not reverted any of the talk pages to repair the info that this user has deleted this time because I know they will just delete it again. I have previously repaired pages and this user has simply deleted or edited the discussion again. I know it is time consuming but you will need to review the history of the relevant talk pages as well as the history of the article page to see the replies I have previously made to this user. Other users have cautioned this user regarding this practice, see evidence below.

This user has accused me of the following "creating a fan page", "excessive reverts/intolerance of differing opinions", "Posting speculation -- other nonsense". This user has also accused Hypernick1980 and I of wikistalking. In my case it was because I made a note on their talk page when they were banned to mention that they had been exhibiting the same behaviour on the Dion Fortune page.

Finally this user clearly does not understand what the sandbox is for as they make many saves of the page while writing replies e.g. today they have edited the Dion Fortune talk page 17 consecutive times while composing their latest response.

What would you like to change about that?

I would like the user to mellow out and engage in reasonable discussion. I (and a number of other users) have attempted to reason with this user but their knowledge of the subject matter is so poor it is difficult to explain things to them.

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

I am not sure what you mean by 'discreetly' but I am up for whatever you can suggest that will help a sensible solution to be reached. You may contact me on my talk page or by email which is morgan at wirejunkie dot com.

[edit] Mediator response

It appears Xyrael has said that he is mediating this case, but for the purpose of keeping things organized, where is the mediation process taking place? Cowman109^Talk 21:09, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Xyrael has contacted me asking for evidence, see my talk page and Xyrael's talk page. Xyrael has asked me for 'some diff links' but I am not sure what they mean by this. I mean, I know what a diff link is, but I can't say 'look at this one diff link and you will see what's going on', because of the nature of the editing by user 67.185.57.48. I know its tiresome, but what needs to happen is that Xrael needs to go through the history of the Dion Fortune page, the Dion Fortune talk page and my talk page and see what has happened. User 67.185.57.48 has removed or rearranged the dialogue on the talk pages to such an extent that it will be difficult to go back and reconstruct the talk pages as they happened. I could do that but I don't want to do so until this is sorted out. I was kinda hoping things would move along a bit quicker as I want to be able to repair the damage done to the various pages before too much time goes by. I'd be gratefull for any suggestions you might have Cowman.

Morgan Leigh 02:22, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll take a closer look at this in the morning when I'm wide awake, and we'll see if we can make some progress :) Cowman109^Talk 02:42, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Cowman, sorry to confuse things. I was just checking that everyone was ready before we began. Looking at the evidence here, it seems to be pretty stacked up against the anon IP, so I thought it might be sensible to check if there was anything against the opposing side first without pointing any finger. Hope I've cleared things up. —Xyrael _{/ 06:55, 23 June 2006 (UTC)}

I'm going to see if I can get in touch with the IP, and see if they are willing to mediate. Otherwise, as it's only really two involved parties, we're not going to get anywhere. —Xyrael _{/ 17:21, 23 June 2006 (UTC)}

• Closing case. From reviewing, this has already been resolved. SynergeticMaggot 16:13, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence

I note the following posts from the talk page of user 67.185.57.48. I note these have all been removed by user 67.185.57.48.

"== Order of items on Talkpages =="

"Note that Items on takpages are in order of when they were originally posted and not in order of your perceived importance. please read Help:Talk page and WP:TPG before continuing to disrupt talkpages. Agathoclea 05:05, 21 June 2006 (UTC)"

"You are removing vital header information, containing important templates and the archive index, from Talk:Adolf Hitler. Please stop. --Lord Deskana ^{I VALUE YOUR OPINIONS} 19:28, 18 June 2006 (UTC)"

" This is vandalism. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked.—WAvegetarian•(talk) 19:35, 18 June 2006 (UTC)"

"

You have been temporarily blocked from editing for vandalism of Wikipedia. Please note that page blanking, addition of random text or spam, deliberate misinformation, privacy violations, and repeated and blatant violation of WP:NPOV are considered vandalism. If you wish to make useful contributions, you may come back after the block expires. Naconkantari 19:35, 18 June 2006 (UTC)"

"You have been blocked from editing for violating Wikipedia policy against WP:TPG. To contest this block, please reply here on your talk page by adding the text ((unblock)) along with the reason you believe the block is unjustified, or email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list.

Note to sysops: Unblocking yourself should almost never be done. If you disagree with the block, contact another administrator. Roy A.A. 18:15, 21 June 2006 (UTC)"

[edit] Compromise offers

I would suggest Brits and Americans to stop using Latin terms, mottoes and sentences. Dating from 1970s, it is no longer welcome and appreciated even in Italy, though Latin words and sentences can be used in academic contexts such as ancient Roman History. Latin expressions are also accepted in Courts debates (advocacy) . The proper word is masterpiece in this case.--Clearcontent aka Doktor Who 20:00, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

The following comments are a copy of part of the discussion from User talk:67.185.57.48 which I have placed here as that user is currently banned and cannot post here. Morgan Leigh 03:27, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

This is no longer a complete copy of the discussion as user 67.185.57.48 keeps editing his user page in a non linear fashion that makes it difficult to transfer all that information to this page. Morgan Leigh 06:44, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

A mediation cabal case has been started to try and resolve the disputes around this article. Are you willing to participate? As you're blocked right now, it'd be good if you could reply here. Thanks. —Xyrael _{/ 17:23, 23 June 2006 (UTC)}

I understand that Morgan Leigh is very protective of his opinions about Dion Fortune, but I don't believe that I crossed any lines in trying to present a differing opinion on the Dion Fortune page. Mr. Leigh even inasmuch admitted that the importance of Dion Fortune is mostly in the eyes of occultists, not anyone else.

The problem occured when Mr. Leigh tried to insert his rebuttals within my counterpoints, in effect, chopping up what I wrote and creating one big mess which is why I decided to organize it better -- since he chopped up my work to begin with.

As for why I was blocked, I do believe that I did not deserve it, because the complaint was made by a user who has a reputation for harassing users whom disagree with him or get in his way. In fact, I was blocked essentially because I Archived old articles and deleted two that blatantly used offensive language.

Encyclopedia pages are not about opinion. They are about making a concise summary of the known information regarding a particular topic. I think your characterisation of my edits as being protective of an opinion is unwarranted. I have not added anything which is not supported by the work of other's, which work I have referenced. Even the use of Magnum Opus to refer to The Mystical Qabbalah' is supported by evidence. See the introduction to 777 where Regardie refers to 'The Mystical Qabbalah' as "Dion Fortune's masterpiece". It may well be true that Fortune is only of interest to occultists. David Beckham is only of interest to football fans but this does not preclude his having an article on wikipedia.

As to your comments that "The Magical Battle of Britain' is 'nonsense' and that 'there is no historical basis' for it, see Fortune, Dion; The Magical Battle of Britain", Sun Chalice Books, 1993, ISBN 1-928754-21-X and Fielding, Charles and Collins, Carr; The Story of Dion Fortune, Thoth Books, 1998, ISBN 1-870450-33-7, p106-109 and Knight, Gareth; "Dion Fortune and the Inner Light", Thoth Publications, 2000, ISBN 1-870450-45-0, ch.32. Please also note the section on 'The Magical Battle of Britain' made no claims as to the effect, or lack thereof, of Fortune's actions. It simply said that, 'Fortune was famed for' which IMHO is a NPOV statement. You seem to be of the opinion that if a thing is not mentioned on the web then it isn't reputable. This is ironic, considering that academia does not consider the web to be reputable. Regardless, if you search for 'The Magical Battle of Britain' Google returns 137 results. I think this puts to rest your comments that it is just 'propaganda'.

In regards to your remarks that I chopped up your comments, if you see [[1]] you can clearly see that I left your comments intact and then quoted the particular part of your comments which I was addressing in my reply, which was placed below your comments. Also regarding editing other users posts, if you see the series of edits you made on the 21st of June (where, incidentally, you should have used the sandbox to organise your reply instead of making 17 consecutive edits to the talk page), it is clear that you edited my earlier posts into a form which you evidentially thought was clearer. While you probably did this with the best of intentions, it is wikipedia policy to not edit other users posts to talk pages. See 'Talk page vandalism' at Wikipedia:Vandalism. Matters would be clearer if you would sign your posts.

Morgan Leigh 03:08, 24 June 2006

I note that despite my request not to edit the page until mediation was finalised user 67.185.57.48 has added a disputed tag to a section of the Dion Fortune page which was never previously in dispute. This user has added nothing to the talk page to support the addition of this tag. Unless this user adds something to support this position I suggest the tag be removed.

Morgan Leigh 06:27, 24 June 2006 (UTC) (Also posted to User talk:67.185.57.48)

I note that user 67.185.57.48 has removed information from the Talk:Dion Fortune page and moved it to the User talk:67.185.57.48 page. I also note that this user has been warned once again (but by a different admin) regarding vandalising talk pages and drive by tagging. User 67.185.57.48 has added a second tag to the Dion Fortune page, also with no accompanying discussion.

Morgan Leigh 07:02, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

We can't really continue this mediation is the user is being repeatedly blocked - mediation isn't about obvious policy violations but rather disagreements. I'd like to propose suspending this mediation until he's unblocked. —Xyrael _{/ 11:55, 24 June 2006 (UTC)}

When he's unblocked, it would also be best to strongly suggest that he creates an account so it's easier to communicate with him. Cowman109^Talk 14:43, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

You're absolutely right. Thanks for your help during this mediation, as you're far more experienced. —Xyrael _{/ 16:38, 24 June 2006 (UTC)}

User 67.185.57.48 is back from being banned. It seems the first thing they did was to remove (not archive but remove) all the previous history from their talk page, saying in the comments that the issues have been resolved. I would be prepared to give them the benefit of the doubt excepting that the only thing that was retained on the user page is an old accusation against myself and another user of wikistalking. Already they have edited my posts on my talk page and posted abuse to the both my talk page (reverted by another user) and the Dion Fortune talk page. This does not bode well. I would be gratefull if you could see if you can engage this user so we can try to help them understand what is regular practice on wikipedia and what is not.

Morgan Leigh 02:41, 1 July 2006 (UTC)