Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-02-02 Dispute over proposed policy procedure
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Request for cabal mediation
[edit] Request Information
- Where is the issue taking place?
- Wikipedia:Information_suppression
- Wikipedia_talk:Information_suppression
- Who's involved?
- User:Radiant! and myself
- What's going on? (summary)
- Policy procedure hostility, threatening to errupt but presently not done so. Suspicion of vote rigging in a consensus-seeking poll. Multiple unilateral edits made to prevent discussion of proposed policy (detagging, page move, delinking from WP advertising pages). I understand Radiant! has a viewpoint. I feel it's just one view of many and a voice of stability would be able to help.
- Note - the issue is not that radiant! is discussing improperly. The page can handle his discussion well. It's the methods and means he appears to be using, and the extent he is going to, to prevent or damage discussion of the matter, and to question if it is legitimate prcedurally, and taking unilateral action on that basis, that is the dispute and that behavior I would like to see explained is not appropriate.
- What's going on? (rest of detail)
- The page is a well explored proposal to create a policy page, for a specific item in WP:NPOV. It has been discussed and gone through 3 versions and consensus on that page, before being created as a proposed policy for discussion. Unusually, it is not a proposed policy as such. It is the result of debate on talk:NPOV that this is important and substantial enough, to seek consensus to give it its own policy page, similar to how WP:NPA has its own page outside WP:CIVIL which it is part of. So it's not about policy creation but about making policy clear, and accessible. It's been clearly explained a dozen times although few people needs it explained more than once.
- The proposal was posted after several drafts reached consensus, on Dec 8. Since that date Radiant! has (without consensus):
-
- Removed the "Proposed" tag, to revent it showing up as proposed policy
- Recategorized it as "Wikipedia essays" which it is not
- Moved the page to "Talk:NPOV/Additions" despite the editors of that page wanting it as a proposed policy page
- Accused those reverting these of breach of procedure, wikilawyering, and other behavior (WP:FAITH]], WP:NPA.
-
- Finally, he commented that his evidence that it was not advertized in accordance with procedure, was that it was not linked from Wikipedia:Current surveys. I investigated and found Radiant! himself had deleted that link, on Jan 13, which explained why it was not being discussed as it had been during December-Jan by the community.
- I also noticed a more disquietening concern.
- Radiant! claimed that with only 6 supportive views and 5 against, the proposal was clearly not supported (misrepresentative by itself). But What I noticed was, that at the time radiant! removed the advertizing link, the balance was around 6-1. Upon removing the advertizing link, all supportive votes and views ceased to reach the page. But strangely, within 6 days of deleting the link to the page, no less than 4 "opposing" editors (and no supporting editors) reached that page to vote against the proposal. How can this be? Prior to link deletion 6 votes yes, one no... link deleted... within 6 days later suddenly 4 "nos" and not one yes? Thats very exceptional. I find that of concern that it may mean, the straw poll to test consensus may not be representative.
- What would you like to change about that?
- I'd like Radiant! to understand that even if he feels strongly, he is one vote of many, and to work within that process. To not attempt to undermine the discussion or consensus forming with accusations and damaging edits bordering on vandalism of the process. If he cannot, I would like to know what the appropriate recourse is.
- Note that if radiant! can understand that the proposal is legitimate, its procedure appropriate, and its discussion is to be engaged in collaboratively if he wishes to engage, then I probably wouldn't have a problem. His views per se aren't a problem, it's only his additional measures used to undermine the seeking of consensus and discussion which are problematic. I'd like the attacks and flames to cease though.
- I suppose what I'd really like is someone to nudge radiant! and say, this really is how Wikipedia is supposed to work, ease up and discuss instead. I don;t see it as a disciplinary issue, even despite apparent policy breaches, more misunderstanding of WP process and willful misreading, that should be easy to correct. The views (for or against) aren't the problem, its the attempts to undo or disrupt process that is.
- If you'd prefer we work discreetly, how can we reach you?
- Post an email addy here, I'll contact whoever's at the other end of it.
