Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-01-02 Mami Wata

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikipedia Mediation Cabal

Article: Mami Wata State: Closed Requested By: MWHS Other Parties: MWHS BrianSmithson Mediated By: Alan.ca Comments: MWHS accepted BrianSmithson's compromise to edit a section at a time.

Contents 1 Mediation Case: Mami Wata 1.1 Request Information 1.2 Mediator response 1.3 Compromise offers 1.4 Discussion

[edit] Mediation Case: Mami Wata

[edit] Request Information

Request made by: MWHS 02:26, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Where is the issue taking place?

Talk:Mami Wata

Who's involved?

User:MWHS, BrianSmithson

What's going on?

We believe that admin user BrianSmithson may be violating our Cultural_rights and Religious Rights to present our ancestral religions as we know and practice them. He appears to not respect our point of view, and does not appear to respond to the informal mediation nor advice of a more experienced [Wiki editor]. Has threaten to replace MWHS' contribution by deleting our article and replacing it with an academic re-write that satisfies his point of view.

What would you like to change about that?

Leave the article and If he disagrees, he may do so IN THE ARTICLE using his own academic sources. He has no legitimate grounds to replace the entire article simply because he does not agree, in-spite of the fact that he has no personal or professional knowledge or experience in our ancestral religion.

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

No. we want all mediation comments stated for the public record.

[edit] Mediator response

Ok, I want to begin by making it clear that this mediation is a content dispute. I am not here to judge the behaviour of editors, but to try and clarify the content dispute so that the edit war in the article may come to closure. This is not a trial to determine if someone's rights have been violated. Do the parties have a clear understanding of what content is in dispute? Alan.ca 22:50, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

There is no edit war. I haven't touched the article in ages except to make sure the {{NPOV}} template stays on top. The content that is disputed is pretty much the whole shebang. MWHS rewrote most of the article citing their founder and her self-published book as their sources. The whole thing is a mess now, both content-wise and style-wise. — BrianSmithson 22:53, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Compromise offers

I appreciate your desire to bring the article inline with your idea of quality. Will you acknowledge that to someone with a great deal of time invested in the article that your offline rewrite might be seen as a take over of the article? Is it possible for you to focus on one section of the article at a time, giving other editors the opportunity to contribute? Alan.ca 07:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I could do that. The problem is that I write almost all Wiki articles like this, offline. That way, I can better organize the information and present it in the best possible format. For example, a certain fact that seems to fit well in one section may later work better in another. It's helpful for me to polish things in my sandbox before final presentation. Granted, the vast majority of articles I edit like this hold very little interest to other editors. In short, though, I think I can do as you suggest, perhaps starting in less controversial areas (it would be nice, for example, to have a section on Mami Wata in art and literature), and moving into the more contentious areas later. — BrianSmithson 09:42, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes. We can collaborate on any aspect of the article. We have never mind this approach. Thank you.[Anagossii]--MWHS 18:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

I wish to proceed with User:Alan.ca as my mediator. Anagossii--MWHS 22:42, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Sure, let's proceed. Alan.ca is fine for the mediator. — BrianSmithson 22:44, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

• There is no edit war. I haven't touched the article in ages except to make sure the {{NPOV}} template stays on top. The content that is disputed is pretty much the whole shebang. MWHS rewrote most of the article citing their founder and her self-published book as their sources. The whole thing is a mess now, both content-wise and style-wise. — BrianSmithson 22:53, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I'm pleased to read that page blanking is not occurring. What would you like to see change specifically? Alan.ca 22:56, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I would like the article to rely solely on reliable sources and or it to cite those sources (in-line, preferably) so that the information can be verfied. I would like the article to conform with the neutral point of view policy. I would like the original research to be removed from the article. I would like the article to be well written. Currently, it does none of those things. I'm working on a rewrite offline that I hope will address these issues. — BrianSmithson 08:26, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your desire to bring the article inline with your idea of quality. Will you acknowledge that to someone with a great deal of time invested in the article that your offline rewrite might be seen as a take over of the article? Is it possible for you to focus on one section of the article at a time, giving other editors the opportunity to contribute? Alan.ca 07:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I could do that. The problem is that I write almost all Wiki articles like this, offline. That way, I can better organize the information and present it in the best possible format. For example, a certain fact that seems to fit well in one section may later work better in another. It's helpful for me to polish things in my sandbox before final presentation. Granted, the vast majority of articles I edit like this hold very little interest to other editors. In short, though, I think I can do as you suggest, perhaps starting in less controversial areas (it would be nice, for example, to have a section on Mami Wata in art and literature), and moving into the more contentious areas later. — BrianSmithson 09:42, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• MWHS, does this address your concerns with BrianSmithson? Alan.ca 14:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Alan. To respond to your question. We have never had a problem with anyone contributing to the article. However, what Brain fails to understand is that this is our beliefs, in an ancient religious system that is inherently secret, female and matrilineal. As a compromise we have provided more than 90% of the academic references listed, (page number and section included) when referencing the general cultural descriptive aspects of our tradition. This is far more than he has offered in the original article. In his primary sources in the original article, he quotes a photographer, and one professor who has no direct knowledge of the tradition as the sole experts. We have merely added what we believe is a more balance perspective from the usual monolithic views espoused by most scholars. Brain appeared to resent this. This is evident by how he has referred to our organization and its leadership in talk:Mami_Wata of which he makes clear that he neither respects as a religious body, nor our contribution. In spite of this, as a compromise, we have re-edited our contribution to the article to comply with the NPOV, by explicitly stating that these are our BELIEFS. We have also from the start, provided numerous references, yet Brain still demanded that we provide his version of “reliable” sources. We will do so Brain, when Christians provide reliable proof and references that the crucifixion and ascension of Christ actually happened, or proof that Moses received the Ten Commandments from God. Finally, we have already offered anyone who is interested to contribute on the cultural aspects of the Mami Wata tradition. If he want to focus on this area, or (any other area) we do not mind. Our major complaint was and is his constant threatening to replace our entire contribution (which he derisively refers to as "mess") with his own version. Brain, the religion is what it is. We initiate, train, and are born to this religion. We know it better than you can ever quote any academic third hand source. If you can respect this, we have never mind working with you or anyone else who also respect our right to contribute. Thank you Alan. Anagossii--MWHS 22:17, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

• MWHS, have you and those opposed to Brian's changes reviewed WP:V? You will notice above the edit summary a link to this Wikipedia Policy is included: Encyclopedic content must be verifiable. I can understand your concerns for someone to come along and completely replace the culmination of a great deal of the work by your group, but I don't think it's unreasonable for an editor to make a contribution based on their own good faith intentions. On wikipedia we discourage subjects of articles from writing about themselves as they tend not to have a Neutral Point of View. It seems to me the dispute here may be a question of reliable sources. Could you provide an example of a conflict where Brian changed something in the article where you had your own source that conflicted the statement he included or deleted? Alan.ca 05:12, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

The subject of the article is Mami Wata, not MWHS. We happened to have contributed the graphics and most of the primary information because we are initiates and practitioners of this tradition. We are no different from a Christian, Muslim, or Hindu etc., authoring an article concerning their religious beliefs and cultural tradition. We understand the subjectivity of religion and do not argue that by definition, most religionists might find it challenging to present some of its beliefs from a NPOV. This is why we have no problem with him or anyone else contributing or disagreeing with our information in the article. Again, our primary concern was his wanting to replace the entire article because he does not agree with our conclusions and beliefs. Again we are oppose to this.Anagossii--MWHS 21:43, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

• MWHS, thank you for the list of sources. However, I am trying to find a specific example of disputed text between yourself and the respondent. I'm not looking for a description of every issue, specifically, just one as a starting point for discussion. Such as, the following text "xxxxxx" was removed by usery, despite that we had provided source zzzz. Alan.ca 12:05, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps we are not understanding your question. We have never accused Brain of removing any text. Our initial request for mediation was to stave-off his following thru with his constant threat of replacing the entire article. Again, in the complaint we stated that we were against this action. He has stated above that he no longer intend to do this, and we are fine with this agreement. Anagossii --MWHS 16:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, if I understand him correctly, his compromise was that he will edit one section at a time. This would give you and other editors the opportunity to collaborate. Do you accept this compromise Mwhs? Alan.ca 17:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes. We can collaborate on any aspect of the article. We have never mind this approach. Thank you.[Anagossii]--MWHS 18:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)