Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/1 01 2006 Skull (symbolism)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Request for cabal mediation
[edit] Request Information
- Request made by: Soo 23:19, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
- Where is the issue taking place?
- Skull (symbolism) and it's Talk page
- Who's involved?
- Me, User:Wetman, User:DreamGuy, and some anons.
- What's going on?
- There are two versions of the article in competition. One version features such phrases as "where there is metaphor there is humanity". An anonymous editor took this version, excised lots of similar material (unsourced, original research or POV), and prepared a considerably shorter version, here. DreamGuy describes this version as "vandalism", on account of the amount of material that was removed, and has threatened to ban anyone restoring this version.
Obviously there has been extensive discussion on the Talk page, including
- Wetman calling the supporters of the shorter version "incompetents", contravening NPA.
- Dreamguy accusing me without evidence of sock puppetry (contravening AGF), despite the fact that as a sysop he can presumably check for himself whether any of the IPs involved belong to me.
- Dreamguy claiming "we need real editors here, not anonymous guests", again contravening NPA ("Never suggest a view is invalid simply because of who its proponent is.")
- What would you like to change about that?
- Ideally I would like the shorter version to be expanded to the length of the original, but only by sourcing all the material, and without the essayish style. If that's not possible then the shorter version should just be left as is. Also Dreamguy should be warned not to use or threaten to use his mod powers as a way to block people who support a different version of the article to his own. Wetman should be advised against insulting other users.
- If you'd prefer we work discreetly, how can we reach you?
- It's all out in the open, but contact by talk page or e-mail is fine.
[edit] Comments by others
[edit] Comments by DreamGuy
While I would certainly love to use my "sysop" powers to ban people like Agentsoo here when they violate policy quite blatantly, repeatedly and unrepetently, that of course is not possible. I would also love to use my "mod" powers to block Agentsoo and others like him when he lists false information in an effort to try to get his way. Facts are that I am neither a sysop nor an admin, and any editor can and, in fact, should warn vandals away from blanking large sections of articles, and point out that their actions can and should get them blocked from editing -- that's not a threat, that's simple following of policy. The anon in question blanked most of the article with the sole comment of saying it "sucked" inhis opinion. This is not a valid reason for blanking an article. This is the version Agentsoo reverts to. Wetman and myself have both pointed out that if there is a dispute over alleged unsourced claims that those items should be marked in discussion and/or marked with -fact- templates on the article itself and not simply be removed. Wetman even went through and marked anything and everything as uncited as a temporary measure to placate the complainers, but they once again went and blanked it. When I restored the page I decided that the one with the fact tags all over was an unnecessary step considering that it clearly did not prevent soo and these anons from blanking most of the page. The article could use some rewriting, and the main author of that article has already said he is open to that once real discussion about perceived problems are raised, but Agentsoo and the anonymous users -- who could very well be soo and certianly are acting against policies with the exact same uncivil language and nonexistent explanations -- simply cannot be allowed to vandalize the article the way they are and to act rudely to the person who spent the time putting it together and individuals who step in to explain how the policies here work. All vandals, regardless if they go and make a deception call for mediation, should have their vandalism undone, should be warned that they can and should be blocked if they continue, and should otherwise be cautioned that their actions will not be tolerated here.
Furthermore, it's clear that Agentsoo has been using sockpuppets to try to get his way. User talk:JonONeill has a very tiny editing history, existing solely to jump in and help Agentsoo out, and the main instigators of the whole conflict are anonymous IP accounts. All of them suspiciously use the same phrases and do the same actions. Furthermore, the article in question earlier survived a deletion vote, and the excessive blanking of all but a few sentences is a clear attempt to force a practical wholesale deletion of the article.
- This is not a case of vandalism, please read WP:VAN. Characterising this dispute as such is not helpful. - FrancisTyers 03:58, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
-
- Furthermore, I suggest you check the talk page of the anonymous user who referred to the article as crap. He extremely unlikely to be a sockpuppet. - FrancisTyers 15:56, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Comments by Wetman
As I pointed out on the Talkpage, the article is very simply threaded together out of mainstream commonplaces and ordinary observations drawn from the illustrations. When an editor complains about the Dürer described as "The skull's huge emptied eye-sockets contrast with Jerome's closed eyes, in one of the best evocations of the interior vision of contemplation, focused on Eternity perhaps, ever realized in Western art" as POV, this is not a competent assessment of what Neutral Point-of-View entails. The description is the result of any educated eye actually looking at the illustration. If it were "POV", then what is the rival evocation of inner vision that the critic has in mind? This is a travesty of the NPOV rule: not what "NPOV" means at all.
I have marked the text [citation needed] at each point that might need explaining to a reader utterly unfamiliar with iconology or cultural history—or that might need to be justified to a hostile reader. That is all I can do for now. When I said of Soo "This is someone whose edit history demonstrates that they have no interest in art history or cultural history, who can't choose between "lack of neutrality" and "original research" but just doesn't like the tone of this article," my accuracy can be checked by reviewing that user's contributions, and compared against Soo's statements right on the Talkpage. "Blanking is a form of vandalism," DreamGuy says, and any competent adult will agree. I had slipped with Lombard king Alboin and called him Alaric. Ignorant me. I would fix it—perhaps some thoughtful editor will do so—but that the article remains far too much my handiwork: On 28 December I listed it at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Media, art and literature, with a call for a wider range of editors with competence in the Humanities, in order to bring it into better accord with Wikipedia standards. I am taking it off my Watchlist now and shall leave it alone. But "incompetent" is a measured assessment of AgentSoo's edits in this particular case. --Wetman 06:13, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
- This is not a case of vandalism, please read WP:VAN. Characterising this dispute as such is not helpful. - FrancisTyers 14:38, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Mediator response
The end indeed. Case closed. Anonymous novel edits merged, Wetman's version restored, tags added, participants reminded of WP:CITE and WP:NPA. Advice to Wetman and DreamGuy, please don't make personal attacks. Advice to Agentsoo and Anonymous, please only be bold where you know something about the subject you are dealing with. - FrancisTyers 17:19, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
