Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-02-10 2006-02-10 Issue with Netoholic

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: aa v ^ 18:21, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Where is the issue taking place?

Primarily Leet as well as Template:Language and Template:English dialects

Who's involved?

Primarily myself and Netoholic.

What's going on?

For background, Leet was at one point a featured article. The article has the unfortunate property of attracting people from ... well, the internet, to come along and add their own "flavor" to the article. Adding neologisms of theirs, etc. While I don't view this as "harmful," per se, it kind of degrades the quality of the article.

I originally encountered the article via Special:Randompage, and noticed an error in it. I corrected the error, and subsequently it was "auto-watched." A while later, I noticed that Netoholic had removed the language infobox that was on the article. I looked at the discussion, and compared what I saw in the discussion, the article, and in related articles (Singlish, Greeklish, Hawaiian Pidgin, and many others). I decided that it was probably not reasonable to designate "Leet" as a language unto itself. I suggested that it might be any of polyglot, dialect, creole, pidgin, dialect, language or cipher. Because Netoholic had asked for "expert sources," I also attempted to contact people elsewhere on wikipedia. I replaced the language template, stating that I thought it was important to have such a template on the page, although I wasn't specifically interested in that template. Netoholic asked me to cite sources. After a lengthy.. discussion, I decided that the article was in such bad shape that I'd just have to rewrite it, substantially. At this point, Netoholic didn't remove the infobox, but decided that he would template:farc it (sigh). That in particular struck me as retaliation for not "getting his way." However, I decided to go along with it, and not make a fuss, eventually completing my rewrite. In this rewrite, I went to great lengths to include sources. Finding sources on this subject is exceptionally difficult, for reasons that I feel are quite obvious. In the course of reading the sources added, I decided that "dialect" was perhaps the closest fit, and included the dialects template.

The dialects template, if you'll have a look, contains some very loose "dialects" of english. I felt that, while Leet is not specifically a dialect of english, but rather a corruption of the languages it is manifested in, Leet is primarily an english phenomenon. As such, it would qualify as a dialect. I feel, also, that including the dialect box, and including Leet in the dialect box, harms neither the article (Leet), nor the infobox. Furthermore, it does not degrade the quality of the encyclopedia, and, much to the benefit of the encyclopedia, aggregates similar topics.

Nobody complained about this for a few weeks. A couple days ago, a user reverted the addition of Leet to the infobox. I reverted that, directing the user to Leet's talk page. Frankly, I had "un-watched" Leet, because I realized I could not possibly keep up with the huge volume of changes being applied to the article. I also wanted to avoid further disagreements with Netoholic.

At any rate, Netoholic reverted the revert, thus removing Leet, again. Again, citing "cite sources" as his disagreement. I think I have made every effort to cooperate with the user. I have also made an extraordinary effort to tighten up the article, fix formatting and link issues, and to define, at least loosely, which template to put on the page. Putting a template on the page, I further stipulate, does not qualify as research . It is also my belief that Netoholic is being disagreeable. I can't fathom how somebody would only react with disagreement, rather than trying to come to agreement. Many users were involved in the discussion. I tried every means I could to bring Netoholic to some sort of agreement. The only thing he offered were reverts. When he asked that I cite sources, and I did, he stated that they weren't enough. Or that they didn't matter.

What would you like to change about that?

I am really rather embarassed to bring this to third parties. I would be asking Radiant for help, as he counciled me in the past about this particular user, but he has... Left. :(

I would like somebody to tell me whether I am being unreasonable. I would like somebody to suggest a path of reconciliation. I would like somebody to tell Netoholic, if it is reasonable, that he at least attempt to resolve the dispute. I have never been involved in a dispute which I couldn't walk away from. I feel, in this case, that he has waged this disagreement across many pages, and I am having difficulty distancing myself from it. Because of this, I don't know what is acceptable behavior from me, or from him.

I would like guidance, perhaps for both of us.

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

Frankly, with all the ruckus on the WP: namespace, I've been doing my best to avoid it. I am also travelling a lot for work in the next couple weeks. It might be best to reach me by email (avriette@gmail.com). Leaving a note on my talk page gives me the big orange "You've got Mail!" message, so that might also be appropriate. If necessary, telephone communication shouldn't be hard, either.

Thanks for your time, folks. Sorry to bring such a petty argument to you. aa v ^ 18:42, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comments by others

Comment: The Leet article is VERY contentious, without even touching Avriette's issue. It's a frequent target for vandals (especially anons), and is full of all sorts of information that's either not verifiable, or "something made up in school". Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that this is the case with Avriette and Neto's dispute, I'm just giving a little background on the article. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 18:28, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mediator response

Under investigation. Dreadlocke 01:20, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

The issue is resolved for now. Avriette has chosen to take the high road and follow the Wikiquette principle to walk away from the dispute with Netaholic and find other Wikipedia articles to work on. Leet article is quite contentious and may require further mediation in the future. Dreadlocke 23:32, 20 March 2006 (UTC)