Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] User:172 and User:Adam Carr re Alexander Lukashenko

I would like someone to read both 172's version and my version of this article, and offer a comment on their respective merits, and on the solution I suggested at the Talk page but which 172 has not responded to. I believe mine is more biographical, more concise, more encyclopaedic and less tendentious than his. I think that the material I (and others) have deleted from the article belongs more properly at History of Belarus. No doubt 172 can tell you what he thinks. Adam 07:52, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I think you are in the wrong room. Wikipedia:Requests for comment is a better place for such a request. --mav 08:07, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)

If there is a deadlock between Users over an article, I think mediation is required, not just comment. Adam 08:12, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)

It is up to mediators to choose what to mediate, but you are skipping a few steps in Wikipedia:Conflict resolution. By exposing the issue to a larger audience you may find that your position is the favored one. If 172 sees that he may very well back down or at least be more willing to compromise. If RfC doesn't work, then you can have a poll to make things clear. Only when that fails to convice the other party do you seek mediation. --mav 08:16, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I think Adam has effectively already exposed the issue to a certain extent. This edit war had been going for some time before I stepped in to rewrite the article to a (in my view) more NPOV and factually-detailed version. The current conflict is between a slimmed-down version of my article (Adam's preference) or an article mostly by 172 but incorporating many of my contributions (172's preference). See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Alexander_Lukashenko&diff=2277442&oldid=2277343 for a comparison.

My personal preference is for Adam's version, though it does still need some modifications. I have some major issues with the changes that 172 proposes, which wipe out a great deal of factual content for no particular reason and adds a good deal of POV material (apparently written from an anti-imperialism perspective). I suggest that we raise the issue on Wikipedia:Requests for comment and move on quickly to a poll, as there's every sign that Adam and 172 will simply continue to revert each other's changes every few minutes. -- ChrisO 09:34, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Mav is right Adam. There are other options to seek before coming here.

Besides, it is best that you understand that no mediator will arbitrate between the two of you (ie, decide which version has more merit). The mediator will try to facilitate the discussion between the two of you, and to reach an acceptable compromise for both of you. Anthere 08:33, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Well I will wait till tomorrow and see what happens. It appears that 172 is declining to participate anyway. Adam 08:36, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)

172 now advises me that he declines to take part in a process of mediation, but insists on his right to revert my edits without discussion. Do I now proceed to Wikipedia:Conflicts between users? Adam 08:42, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I had a quick look, and it seems to me you are in the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3AConflict_resolution#Step_2:_Discuss_with_third_parties step. And when you look at it carefully, that is exactly what you tried to do here -> seeking other people advices. So, this is precisely what you should do. See Wikipedia:Requests for comment

Perhaps you could also quickly resume the core of the conflict. I noticed that in the reversion, there was also reversion of the spelling of the man. Aren't there rules about the way non english people name should be spellt ? Anthere

---

I moved this request to archive. On the 05/02, the article is still protected. Discussions are under way between Adam, 172 and ChrisO. They appear constructive, and rather civil. I may be wrong but I think this case does not need committee mediation to proceed. Positive results are likely to happen with mutual understanding :-) If I am wrong, well, just put everything back :-) User:Anthere

[edit] user:Mr-Natural-Health + community

• I would like the mediation comittee to see if they can perseude user:Mr-Natural-Health to work with myself and many other users on alternative medicine and a number of related articles. In any situation where Mr NH has disagreed with anyone else, he starts dishing out insults, listing out names on conflicts between users and reverting out work. theresa knott 20:30, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Copied from user_talk:Mr-Natural-Health

In order to try and sort out the conflicts that you keep having between myself and other users, I've put your's and my name up to the mediation comittee. The idea is that some of the trusted wikimembers who are not particulaly interested in medicine (and are therfore likely to be as unbiased as possible) try to resolve the conflicts. The process is new, but I believe that we both have to agree to undergo the process. I respectfully ask therefore that you go to Wikipedia:Requests for mediation and state wehether you are or are not prepaired to agree to the process. Thank you. theresa knott 20:37, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Copied from user_talk:Theresa knott

No, I do not think so. -- Mr-Natural-Health 04:51, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

So what happens next ? Will someone else have a go at getting him to agree or do we go straight to arbitration? theresa knott 09:28, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for trying so politely Teresa. Jussi-Ville Heiskanen has approached Mr Natural Health on behalf of the committee at this point. -- sannse 10:28, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

---

I am the second party to this dispute.

Let me recap my position. My primary problem is with Alternative medicine rather than with Medical Scientism, although that also is a problem area. AM is apparently a controversial area as AM has been edited on a daily basis for the short time that I have been here. I feel that this circular editing process is the normal course of business for AM. And, I have accepted that process. I personally have added 13 citations to research studies complete with online hyperlinks either to the public abstract or to the full text of the research study, four hyperlinks to relevant web pages, and one book reference to support the ten general arguments in support of AM. I do not recall the opposition having supported a single one of their claims with a reference. Basically, I was happy with the AM article as it was. And, I was resigned to the fact that others would be continually editing the article making those going in circles changes that I have come to accept as a part of controversy in Wikipedia.

So, as my last comments regarding ghostwriting in AM were accepted without them being deleted; I started a brand new article called Medical Scientism. A number of problems developed. Namely it was protected so that I was not in a position to improve this article. So, from my point of view a number of individuals, including User:theresa knott were basically harassing me. So, I started working with theresa knot on the talk page. Over the weekend, I completed my documentation of my position on MS in Talk:Medical Scientism.

As the sysop who protected Medical Scientism, I would like to note that I did this precisely because there was a reversion war going on between you and several others. In other words, the article was not improved at all because it was used as a theatre for hostilities. You and everybody else are temporarily not in a position to improve it because you resorted to hostilities instead of cooperating. You can and should work on the article by discussing your position in talk pages, and when there is a consensus the protection will be lifted. The better your cooperation, the better your chances of having your views adequately represented. Kosebamse 15:53, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)

So, I returned to the AM article on Monday and found that User:David Gerard had been playing dirty with Alternative medicine, to-wit:

David added Off-topic POV comments in the research design sub-section, declared that there was an edit war, and then had Alternative medicine protected. Those off-topic comments were written by a third party. They are off topic because I had writen in page history, the subject of that sub-section was clearly research design concerns. Therefore, any additions or changes have to be written from a medical study research design perspective. They were not, nor did I believe that they could be restructured due to their POV content, so I 100% deleted that one small paragraph for the 2nd time. This is standard operating procedure as most of all my edits have been repeatedly deleted 100%.

The precise comments added by Daivid were:"Some alternative medicine techniques are closely tied to religious or philosophical beliefs. Practitioners of these techniques may resist scientific scrutiny, fearing that negative experimental results will be used to question these underlying beliefs."

From my point of view, there was no edit war because nobody was repeatedly making 100% restorations of two radically different versions of the AM article. In fact, nobody had been editing it at all. Certainly, not me as I was busy with Medical Scientism.

So, my primary beef is now with David Gerard rather than with theresa knott. But, certainly quite a few individuals have step forward to harass me in my efforts to improve the articles that I have been editing. I am also extremely annoyed at people moving my comments. I put my comments where I wanted them for a reason. In the latest move, they said that they moved my Wikipedia:Conflicts between users conflicts, but they clearly added a lot of material from elsewhere which was not from my listed conflicts. Further, they put my conflicts on the very bottom of this page so that visitors would first have to page to through a lot of unrelated garbage to see my list of conflicts.

This is what I call harassment.

As far as me dishing out insults, I feel that those people are overly sensitive especially in light of the dirty tactics being employed by these very same people. -- Mr-Natural-Health 04:53, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Mr-Natural-Health's characterisation of events is not quite what happened - have a look at the page's history, and particularly the comments for edits. The insert above was written by someone else and cleared by Mr-Natural-Health with the comment "(Any characterizing AM of techniques is POV. If you cannot frame your comments in English as a research design concern then they are out of place in this section. Therefore, 100% deletion is in order)". My single edit to the article was to revert it. I asked for protection of the page because it was pretty clearly an edit war.

Mr-Natural-Health is writing articles on topics that certainly warrant articles. Unfortunately, he appears to have a proprietary attitude to articles he started, and trouble accepting edits from others. See also Talk:Medical Scientism and Talk:Evidence-based medicine. - David Gerard 09:17, Jan 22, 2004 (UTC)

Note that while it is true that "AM is apparently a controversial area as AM has been edited on a daily basis for the short time that I have been here", the history shows that the editing every day only started when Mr-Natural-Health started participating. - David Gerard 16:35, Jan 22, 2004 (UTC)

Mr-Natural-Health, Would you consider mediation of these matters? Fred Bauder 06:45, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)

From an edit summary on this page by Mr-Natural-Health: "I agree to arbitration in Wikipedia:Requests for mediation" -- sannse 11:06, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)

That's very good news. To the mediation committee - what happens next? Will someone contact me? Or should I should I approach someone from the committee? To Mr Natural Health - I 'm sorry that you feel you are being harassed. I can't speak for anyone else but it certainly was not my intention to harass you, or cause you to feel unwelcome. My interest is the same as yours. I want to improve the article. The thing is, from my POV you have taken a combatant stance. You appear to me to view the articles you edit as belonging to you rather than the community, and take any change as a personal criticism. You also tend to lump everyone together as your enemy and call them "medical scientenists" (or some such thing - I'm not sure of the spelling) this has led you to be very rude to people. It's no good saying that they are oversensitive as an excuse. theresa knott 14:11, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)

As far as this ownership nonsense goes, I do not engage in that anymore than the next person does who periodically checks up on the current status of their past edits. Considering the volatility of Alternative medicine this is a requirement unless you want RK to delete all your improvements.

I consider answering these mickey mouse kinds of comments a total waste of my time. -- Mr-Natural-Health 14:54, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)

In articles like alternative medicine there is the PRO and the CON side. I am clearly part of the PRO alternative medicine people. And, the CON side is clearly populated by the Medical Scientism people. From your prior biased comments in numerous places you clearly are not neutral in your position on alternative mediciene. -- Mr-Natural-Health 14:59, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I accept that I am not neutral. I don't have to be neutral - only the article does. If you were to work with people like me instead of calling me names we could write a really great article that presented both sides and allowed the reader to form their own opinion. However so far you have been unable to work with anyone. You insist that only your opinion counts. theresa knott 15:13, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Do, you agree to or accept my proposal?

If yes, shall I write the first draft of neutral text or you?

Or, are we supposed to wait for a neutral mediator?

-- Mr-Natural-Health 00:49, 23 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I accept your proposal on one condition. That whilst I work with you and a mediator you remain polite and cooperative with me. By this I mean you do not shout (Use all caps) you do not insult me, you do not list me on conflicts between users, and you do not put unpleasant remarks in the summary box. I you will not agree to this then I can't work with you. theresa knott 09:45, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)

A wiseman once wrote: "I originally declined because of my perception that it would only be another structured way to waste more of my limited time. On my mailing list and website, I can actually get work done. In this place, everyone is editing the same stuff over and over again in a never ending circle." Perhaps, I should follow his advice? -- Mr-Natural-Health 13:31, 24 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Have you looked at Wikinfo ? They have a policy of sympathetic views - "A major innovation, especially with regard to controversial subjects, is the policy of sympathetic point of view." [1] - David Gerard 18:05, Jan 24, 2004 (UTC)

About the end of my 2nd week here, someone suggested to me Wikinfo. From a legal viewpoint, I won the arbitration. I responded and the loyal opposition defaulted. Ergo, I won. -- Mr-Natural-Health 19:06, 24 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Mr-Natural-Health, mediation is not about who wins & who loses. It is about trying to find a common ground between the parties involved, & reach an agreement all are satisfied with. Frankly, speaking as one of mediators (who has been having problems connecting to the Internet over the last couple of days), I am concerned that you see mediation as something which one party wins & the other loses; it is supposed to be a process that results in both parties making concessions -- or coming to understandings -- that reduce the number of conflicts on Wikipedia. May I assume that you simply misspoke? -- llywrch 23:44, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)

The arbitration committee is in the process of being set up. If you continue with your abusive behaviour they will deal with you in time. The best way to 'win' is to stop being hostile and rude to other editors and work with us. Thay way everyone wins. If you continue making personal attacks, sooner or later you will be banned. theresa knott 09:45, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)

So, you do frequent this place on weekends after all?

There are only two choices here. Either you will accept my proposal, or a similar one within in a day or two, or I will resume my normal editing stance. If you agree to work with me on a neutral version of Alternative medicine, then my communications will be impersonal, short, and to the point. But, if you people attempt to waste any more of my time then you can expect to see more of what you falsely characterize as being hostile and rude to other editors. The choice is entirely yours.

One thing is for sure. We are not going to mediate my behavior. It is either work on an article or the entire mediation process is off, as far as I am concerned. And, I will then resume my normal editing stance of improving other articles.

--Mr-Natural-Health 16:03, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Not good enough by a long shot. theresa knott 17:20, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)

[edit] 168... and maveric149

message board

As noted on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/168 (I have to refer to a diff because 168... has been reverting my changes to that and other pages) I feel that 168... has abused his sysop user rights and has been a disruptive force in the community by engaging in revert wars (often using the rollback feature as a tool in those wars and on at least two occassions using page protection as a revert war tool as well). What I want is for 168... to stop abusing his sysop user rights, stop engaging in edit wars and for him to start cooperating with others (as noted on the RfC page he has ignored the consensus on the DNA talk page). 168... indicated on my talk page that he was willing to start mediation. --mav 06:05, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Note that the above version actually dates from the 16th of February, when Mav made this change. The change makes my point about "consensus" below seemingly irrelevant, but it was a response to Mav. One of my disagreements with Mav is the bias with which he brings complaints against me and so predisposes the community to a negative evaluation of my behavior. I don't think it's completely conscious, but it's extremely unfair.168...|...Talk 22:25, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I don't have enough time to deal with all users I think have issues. My next project will be Lir. --mav

You create your own to-do list and set your own schedule. You could slow down and proceed carefully, if that were a priority for you.168...|...Talk 23:15, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

• Note there was no "consensus" and that this term has been used exclusively so far as I can tell to negatively portray my actions, which involved failing to recognize a vote, which did not result in consensus and was called without broad support. I had offered reasons in advance against holding the vote, which vote-supporters did not seriously debate, and I said in advance that I would not recognize its outcome. Also I am not the only person who has refused to recognize its outcome. 168...|...Talk 21:54, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I would accept mediation from any of these users: Angela, Anthere, Cimon Avaro, Dante Alighieri, llywrch, sannse, or TUF-KAT (in no particular order). I would also add Ed Poor but since 168... has already made an RfC page on him, I doubt that 168... would choose Ed as a mediator. --mav

I'm willing to mediate. I haven't been following the dispute in particular or DNA in general, so I really have no preconceived notions about the issue. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 19:33, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I'd accept Anthere, who has been friendly to me and knows me from other contexts.168...|...Talk 20:00, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

thank you 168. I was away for a while. I need to go through the archives, and numerous mails. Will be back tomorrow. ant