Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-11-16 Classical Liberalism Edit War

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikipedia Mediation Cabal

Article: Classical Liberalism State: Closed Requested By: Shawn Fitzgibbons Mediated By: Wikizach Comments: Opening case

Contents 1 Mediation Case: 2006-11-16 Classical Liberalism Edit War 1.1 Request Information 1.2 Mediator response 1.3 Compromise offers 1.4 Discussion

[edit] Mediation Case: 2006-11-16 Classical Liberalism Edit War

[edit] Request Information

Request made by: Shawn Fitzgibbons 20:29, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Where is the issue taking place?

...Classical Liberalism, Talk:Classical liberalism

Who's involved?

...Shawn Fitzgibbons, Robocracy, and two other anonymous editors: 129.120.4.1 and 71.15.112.129.

What's going on?

...129.120.4.1 and 71.15.112.129 are deleting content without any prior discussion. Further, any attempt at discussion seems to be not only fruitless, but filled with diatribe. From Talk:Classical liberalism it seems the edits are based on the editors' opinions about what belongs to the topic, including what sources can be used for the article. But for the most part these opinions are not backed-up with any references, simply blanket, obtuse statements about everyone knowing such-and-such, or even ad hominem attacks against others' arguments, even when they are supported by relevant sources. In short, people are being unreasonable about what does and does not belong in the article.

Actually, if you look, Shawn has a history of deleting information without prior discussion...most of which was blockquotes. He wants discussion and consensus before material is added...unless of course he is adding it. He's just making up excuses to delete things he does not like.

What would you like to change about that?

...I'm not really sure, but some type of moderation of the article seems warranted to promote quality.

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

...I don't prefer to work discreetly.

[edit] Mediator response

[edit] Compromise offers

[edit] Discussion

There is no edit war, well unless you count Shawns reverts of perfectly sound, logical, rational, and minor edits to this page. He also seems to be pushing a POV dedicated to discrediting one or two views of what defines a classical liberalism, including pushing a quote from a Anarcho Capitalist named Block, which appears to be misquoted, or out of context, to represent Adam Smith as some sort of a big government advocate, which very few people would ever agree with. The page should NOT have been protected with his last edit, since he never participated in any discussion which discusses the changes he reverted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.15.112.129 (talk)

An edit war simply involves sharp disagreements over edits, which results in multiple reverts. This circumstance is clearly apparent from the page's history and the sysop responded accordingly. Whether or not Shawn's reverts or original edits are justified are irrelevant. Sysops protect pages as they are, not trying to go back in time and find the "right version," to revert to and protect. As the tag says, protection does not imply endorsement of the currency version. In addition, the mediation cabal is meant to reach compromises between conflicting parties, not to make arguments for unprotection or make accusations. And finally, I would please request again that you sign your comments with ~~~~ Thank you. Robocracy 08:16, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I think the guidelines I suggested for editing the article are simple and fair. We can't simply allow people to delete others' content without any discussion. The only way to correct such divisive behavior is to make all the same steps in reverse or revert the article. If people had just acted in good faith with their editing, the article most likely would have not been locked.

It appears we have an agreement that mainstream secondary sources (e.g. encyclopedia articles) will serve as a basis for the article. Whatever is inconsistent with those will have to be left off, I'm afraid, due to the seemingly controversial nature of its content.Shawn Fitzgibbons 12:34, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Numero Uno rule breaker, see above! You complain about things being added or taken without consensus yet you do it and that is ok? You also keep deleting harmless blockquotes which dress up the article to make it look nicer...WITHOUT consensus. And there is no agreement on the sources that should be used. "Mainstream" sources is discretionary and intended to delete infromation Shawn aka Slizor disagrees with.

You're being unreasonable. Robocracy came up with the idea of using mainstream sources (i.e. widely accepted sources like common encyclopediae) and you say that is unacceptable to you. What sources are acceptable to you then, if not encyclopedias?Shawn Fitzgibbons 21:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Using a common encyclopedia is hardly reasonable, and hardly enough to write an article of this density. How many encyclopedia articles are written using other encyclopedias? Seriously. Most of the sources used, btw, are "main stream" I think the "compromise" is really intended to select sources to eliminate portions (ie a very small portion) of the article.

I'm still of the opinion that encyclopedia articles as a basis, followed by peer-reviewed secondary sources, should serve as reference material for the article. There is no reason to compromise on that--it's simply good policy for a quality article. Objections appear to be based on the fear that favored content will be eliminated. Well, if that content is inconsistent with an encyclopedia article, then it most likely is some editorial/opinion piece, which doesn't belong in the article.Shawn Fitzgibbons 04:53, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Let me guess you want to get rid of Cato refrences? You've already shown a disdain for American academic articles so I really must question the credibility of your claims and prefrences.

Lets face facts, for over a year left of center editors have attacked this article's so called libertarian slant. But the article has held up quite well for one simple reason, the libertarian slant is limited to 3 paragraphs and it all describes historical and political facts. The remainder of disagreement between editors sits on what a classical liberal is and this disagreement is based on minority opinion, generally from less than reputable sources. The vast majority of American political scientists...even those left of center, recognize that classical liberals believed in (there is no catchall but it is generally agreed upon that there are unifying characteristics such as:) 1)limited government with seperate branches of power 2) free trade 3) negative freedom, and that there is a difference between classical liberalism and modern American liberalism or social liberalism. The main differences are, social liberalism does not treat government as suspect, instead it uses government to promote positive freedoms, which in turn limit free trade and promote large government. Most everyone agrees with this in the world, except for a few editors like Slizor and Shawn F, who seem to defy the host of evidence and articles that disagree with their own incoherent position. Anything that says libertarians are classical liberals has a source and attributes this as their own interpretation (though even some Marxists apparently agree with this point). The article needs work in places (What article doesnt) but it does NOT need wholesale deletion that SF desires. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.15.112.129 (talk)

Cato is a Libertarian Think-Tank and I have no problem with using them, provided that there are a variety of other sources. As it stands now, there are an over-abundance of Libertarian scholars cited. Our discussions would also go a lot more smoothly if you would please sign your comments. Robocracy 14:54, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Please do not accuse me of using sock puppets. Especially since I have not been editing the article for a while due to a temporary increase in my workload.

As for saying that the article has held up quite well because its slant is limited.....hah. It has survived through continual efforts by libertarian POV-warriors such as KDRGibby (who I think is now banned.)And, for clarity's sake can you guys please start signing your comments? I only have limited time to spend on Wikipedia. Slizor 14:58, 22 November 2006 (UTC)