Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-08-20 consensus of editors defy WP:RS

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikipedia Mediation Cabal

Article: Scientology as a business State: Closed Requested By: Terryeo Mediated By: Xyrael Comments: Due to arbitration committee decisions, this case is not appropriate for mediation.

Contents 1 Mediation Case: 2006-08-20 concensus of editors defy WP RS 1.1 Request Information 1.2 Mediator response 1.3 Compromise offers 1.4 Discussion

[edit] Mediation Case: 2006-08-20 concensus of editors defy WP RS

[edit] Request Information

Request made by: Terryeo 22:05, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Where is the issue taking place?

The article Scientology_as_a_business

Who's involved?

Myself, and several editors including but not limited to User:Fahrenheit451, User:Futurix and User:AndroidCat

What's going on?

As the discussion [here spells out, A large chart which is personal opinion from a personal website is being used whole and cited to the personal website. Editor discussion shows a concensus of editors refuse to budge. I have mentioned WP:RS several times.

What would you like to change about that?

The citation of the chart to the personal website does not meet WP:RS and should be removed. The Chart itself then becomes at least one column smaller, losing "total cost". As it stands it implies that it is an official chart, created and supported by the Church of Scientology. Which is untrue.

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

I prefer Wikipedia articles meet Wikipedia concensus of editors as presented by policy and guideline. My user discussion page is a perfectly good place to contact me for any reason.

[edit] Mediator response

I do not believe that this issue is appropriate for mediation at the moment due to the sanctions applied by the arbitration committee to Terryeo. I think it is a shame that informal mediation could not have been brought in earlier, but it is too late now as one of the disputants is forbidden from working with the article in question. Thank you. —Xyrael / 11:28, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Interesting. I am actually the only disputant and there is no other disputant, it is unfortunate that you do not understand that the issue has been raised by a single and lone disputant. That would be me. However, even though you have refused to observe there is only one disputant to the citation, I am, actually, the only disputant who has raised an issue. All of the other people who hold firm to the anti-scientology line of reasoning, "almost any anti-scientology reference is okay our wikipedia articles" are of one mind. I see now that the mediation committee is unable to confront that a single editor (by himself and alone) has raised an issue. I am not, "one of the disputants" because there is no dispute except that dispute which I raise. Simply reading the rest of the information here will aquaint you with the mutual thinking of all of the other editrs, (and the volenteer) who are completely satisifed that Wikipedia policy and guildeline are completely fulfilled by the citation I brought to mediation. Again, I am the only disputant. Happy Ho Ho's, Mr. refusal. Terryeo 17:30, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Terryeo, you are advised to be civil. Xyrael gave you his estimation of the situation and it is accurate. Because you did not get your way, you got nasty. Happy Ho Ho's, Mr. uncivil. --Fahrenheit451 01:15, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Why thank you for mentioning the heat :) The last time you carried things further than needed this was the result [1]. This page is inappropriate for such advise because the case is closed. However, in every instance of my attempting to communicate with you, you simple delete my message from your page. When will you quit viewing me as an opponenet and seek some common ground that we might work together, as I have attempted to do and been rebuked from ? Terryeo 07:13, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Compromise offers

[edit] Discussion

I don't see any need of mediation in this case.

• User Terryeo was banned from editing all Scientology-related articles and now he tries to push his POV using any other way he can find (including this case).
• Terryeo clearly does not understand WP:RS - or most likely pretends to not understand to be able to twist it to his liking.
• There is already a general consensus in this case.
• Xenu.net was already discussed in the arbitration, and was found to be worty of citing.

Futurix 09:52, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

No. It was not. In fact, when directly asked, the arbitration committee refused, by their concensus, to respond to the raised question. Some thought it to be quoteable, some were sure it is not, others refused to comment and the result was, "no comment". I don't have the link handy, but that was the result and your statement is a mis-statement of the findings of the arb committee. Terryeo 22:07, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I have stated why I requested a mediation. WP:RS, as a concensus of editors fulfill WP:V states:

• Self-published sources as secondary sources - Personal websites, blogs, and other self-published or vanity publications should not be used as secondary sources. (emphisis added)

• That is, they should not be used as sources of information about a person or topic other than the owner of the website, or author of the book. The reason personal websites are not used as secondary sources — and as primary sources only with great caution and not as a sole source if the subject is controversial — is that they are usually created by unknown individuals who have no one checking their work. They may be uninformed, misled, pushing an agenda, sloppy, relying on rumor and suspicion, or even insane; or they may be intelligent, careful people sharing their knowledge with the world. Only with independent verification by other sources not holding the same POV is it possible to determine the difference.

• Visiting a stranger's personal website is often the online equivalent of reading an unattributed flyer on a lamp post, and should be treated accordingly.

How clearly can the reasons for not using Xenu.net, Clambake.org and other personal websites be stated? Yet several editors insist that it is appropriate to use the personal opinion of Andreas Heldal-Lund, at xenu.net. His front page disclaimer states: DISCLAIMER: I, Andreas Heldal-Lund, am alone responsible for Operation Clambake. I speak only my own personal opinions. This is but one example of the manner in which the editors of the Scientology series defy wikipedia policy and guideline in an attempt to create an unattributed flyer on a lamp post because it suits thier personal POV. User:Futurix states: WP:RS is not a rule, but a guideline. As I quoted before: WP:RS "should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception". on that the article's discussion page. And that is not correct. Such an attitude will create a poor quality Wikipedia, as good as a flyer on a lampost. A concensus of editors at WP:RS is everyone. While Futurix' "concensus of editors" is a handful of Scientology series editors. Terryeo 15:02, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

By your own admission, some of the data on the site comes directly from the CoS (there are scanned documents, the authenticity of which is not in question). There is no blanket ban on using accurate information (rather than opinion) from Xenu.net. Your argument is disingenuous, and in several other Scientology dicussions I've seen you present "half-truths", only to revise them when somebody calls you out. Your unwilligness to accept consensus after REPEATED discussions on the topic (read: we will NEVER ban xenu.net as a source) does not sit well with me, despite my attempt to assume good faith. You are becoming personally embattled in this discussion, which is not a good course to take when you have been banned (for good reason) from editing Scientology articles. Though I feel mediation can be useful in many cases, I have to conculde that it would not be beneficial here because you would not accept any argument different from your own even if every last editor here disagreed with you. As a result, this editor declines your invitation to mediate. Vpoko 16:21, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Ummm, errr. ummm. Gee, I'm not sure what to say to a statement so tendentatiously stated. My interest is in implementint Wikipedia Policy and guidelines, or, alternatively, (one option) rewriting guidelines. Obviously, the guidelines are not being followed. That is why I request mediation. I did not mean to lead anyone down a pathway which precludes the discussion of the foundation on which the articles exist, i.e. Wikipedia's policy and guidelines. That is the topic I propose here, the simple application of guideline. Alternatively, if you feel so strongly about it, why not involve yourself in re-writing the guidelines to include what you know is right? Terryeo 22:02, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't feel there's any problem with the guidelines - the only problem is the interpertation of the guideline as it applies to this case. To quote Inigo Montoya from The Princess Bride, "You keep using that word. I do no think it means what you think it means." Vpoko 22:06, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I am glad you are still talking. WP:RS states, Personal websites, blogs, and other self-published or vanity publications should not be used as secondary sources, while Xenu.net is a personal website. Personal opinion is presented to our reading public as if it were something more than one Scientology-critic's personal opinion. It is not. It is one critic's point of view, published on his personal website. What possible misinterpertation could there be? Terryeo 22:12, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

My disagreement is twofold. 1: I don't think xenu.net qualifies as a personal website, and 2: It is the prerogative of the editors (as a whole) to decide when this guideline is appropriate and when it isn't. It is not a rule, it is a guideline. Making a determination that the guideline should not apply does not mean the guideline needs to be revised, it means the editors feel greater good would be done by not applying the guideline. Vpoko 22:39, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

On that basis, I believe there is potential for discussion and mediation. Terryeo 23:06, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Are you open to possibly changing your mind? I don't see any point to mediation if either side won't consider budging. Vpoko 23:19, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment: I strongly recommend that this mediation be rejected. It simply isn't appropriate to jump straight to mediation when there's been no attempt to engage the wider Wikipedia community. I suggest to the disputants that they look at Wikipedia:Negotiation, particularly Wikipedia:Requests for comment, with a view to obtaining community feedback through an article content RfC. -- ChrisO 01:25, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

You are absolutely right, I should not have been drawn into the discussion on this page. I withdraw my remarks. Vpoko 01:29, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I made effort for 3 weeks to engage the community. I have posted for weeks about the situation, I included every editor who commented in this mediation. Terryeo 01:38, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Per WP:DR I first talked with the other parties involved. I then let it go for a while. Per WP:DR at WP:DR#Further_dispute_resolution I then requested an informal mediation. (this, here, this page, this request). ChrisO has not uttered a word to me since except to accuse me of a personal attack. I have requested an editor or two look at the difficulty I have spelled out above and both of them agree there are problems with it and that it falls below the threshold of quality for information which can be included in Wikipedia. Now what ? Terryeo 14:28, 30 August 2006 (UTC)