Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-03-30 School of Education
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| Wikipedia Mediation Cabal | ||||||||||||
|
Contents |
[edit] Request Information
I need to know whether my edits to the article are worth undoing, and whether the editor who undid them is "out of line".
[edit] Who are the involved parties?
User:Freechild and User:Skaraoke
[edit] What's going on?
The article creator wrote an article without citations while making crass assertions, all very American. I tagged the article WP:OR and WP:globalize, and inserted a variety of citation requests t/o the article. Additionally, I inserted a variety of text and some useful and appropriate templates, and categorized the article. The original editor immediately undid the revisions I'd completed, and indicated on my talk page that he would not allow me to edit "his" page because of past edits I'd completed on other pages that he disagreed with.
-
"The article creator wrote an article without citations"
- ...because it's a work-in-progress, as clearly stated on the article's talk page from the very beginning. The missing citations were clearly marked, and they are being added. - Skaraoke 09:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
-
"while making crass assertions, all very American."
- Overtly insulting someone's nationality is generally not nice. - Skaraoke 09:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
-
"I tagged the article WP:OR and WP:globalize, and inserted a variety of citation requests t/o the article."
- Most of the citation requests were already there, having been inserted by me from the very beginning. All he did was add some extra tags in paragraphs that already had them. - Skaraoke 09:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
-
"Additionally, I inserted a variety of text and some useful and appropriate templates, and categorized the article. The original editor immediately undid the revisions I'd completed,"
- ...and quickly reincorporated most of them in edits that took place immediately afterward. I didn't restore his edits on the Types of Programs section because I genuinely thought that they weren't very good. - Skaraoke 09:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
-
"and indicated on my talk page that he would not allow me to edit "his" page because of past edits I'd completed on other pages that he disagreed with."
- I made no such claim of ownership of the page, and explicitly requested help in refining the article on the talk page right from the beginning. Nor did I say that I would "allow" or "disallow" anything, which is not even within my ability even if I wanted to. The "edits" that I objected to were blatant flames directed at me on Talk:Teaching for social justice. - Skaraoke 09:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- User:Freechild seems to have a vendetta against me because I discovered that some of the sources cited on his vanity page were misleading and/or dubious when I examined them. (That article is currently being considered for deletion.) He drew attention to himself by flaming me, which is how I found his article in the first place, and he has no one to blame but himself for the extra scrutiny that his behavior prompted. - Skaraoke 09:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] What would you like to change about that?
I would like my edits restored and the editor who undid them to learn what appropriate editing behavior is.
- I'm a graduate student in the School of Education at Stanford University. I would like enjoy the last few days of my Spring Break without having to be harassed by a political activist who has been trying to use WP articles for pamphleteering. Most of his edits had already been restored before he sent in this request for mediation. He's an editor, just like I am; why does he think he needs some kind of special help to restore his edits? Perhaps he just wants authority figures to tell him that he's right. External validation seems to be very important to him; maybe he lacks self-esteem. - Skaraoke 09:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Mediator response
This whole issue seems to be based on the citation method of an article. If I'm wrong, prod me. I ask Sharaoke to please read WP:NPA, as attacks do not help this issue, but, instead, disrupts it. I am pretty sure that Freechild's edits were of good faith, and I ask that you, Sharaoke, do not criticize him for it. Nethertheless,the article is pretty good now, after excellent cleanup, and maintenance tags needn't be added on again. Freechild, I do not think Sharaoke's edits were "out of line" though you do deserve a better explanation than being personal attacked... I ask all parties involved to read WP:ATT, and to always assume good faith. --KZTalk • Contrib 10:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
-
"I ask Sharaoke to please read WP:NPA, as attacks do not help this issue, but, instead, disrupts it."
- Please explain? - Skaraoke 11:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- Also consider adding {{inuse}} to an article, instead of a note on a talk page, as not all users check the talkpages --KZTalk • Contrib 10:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- I didn't know about this tag until you mentioned it, but it's a good idea. Thanks. I think I'm going to put an {{Underconstruction}} tag instead because it isn't specific about time. - Skaraoke 11:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- Also consider adding {{inuse}} to an article, instead of a note on a talk page, as not all users check the talkpages --KZTalk • Contrib 10:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
