Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-03-29 Hero
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| Wikipedia Mediation Cabal | ||||||||||||
|
Contents |
[edit] Request Information
[edit] Who are the involved parties?
Corrupt One, and I (CaveatLector)
[edit] What's going on?
Corrupt One keeps wanting to use the discussion page for Hero as a forum for open debate regarding the concept of the Hero.
[edit] What would you like to change about that?
I think he has some good intentions, but please, could someone else explain the WP:NOT policy to him? (I tried)
[edit] Mediator response
If it's ok for the parties, I'm going to mediate this case. Please state your acceptance in the discussion section. Snowolf (talk) CON COI - 23:01, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Discussion
I accept. Like I said in the description, the main problem is that, for some time now, on the Hero talkpage, CorruptOne continually tries to create forum like discussions, besides being told numerous times (and quite politely at first, mind you) that talk pages are not to be considered forums for discussion, but rather on specific issues regarding the editing of the article. I've tried explaining this to him to no avail, and I just want another editor to have a go at trying to make him understand. CaveatLectorTalk 02:13, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
I have been off for a bit, and only just got back on. The reason I wish to create discusion on a matter is so that we can find information, using established research, to use in changing the article. I believe that before you make any changes to a page, you should discuse the matter on the talk page. I raised a few matter where I think we need to look into more for the article, and put down some information. I even stated what sub areas I think should be looked into more.
If we are NOT to do this, then WHAT are the talk pages for, and where can we discuse matters on the article that we think need changing? I have asked that on my talk page. I would appreciate it if CaveatLector would tell me how I am going about this wrong.
If I seem to take a while to reply, or reply at erratic intiviles, that is does to irregular internet access, and is not meant to annoy anyone or seem like ignoring a matter. Corrupt one 04:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
I thought about this immediately after it was too late to add it last time, but one of the reasons I kept resetting the page back to include my bit was due to the fact that with it being reset to how it was before I had mad that segment, it was loosing other additions to the page. When I reset it to include that stuff, I checked the page out each time the best that I could and made sure no additions were lost. I even mentioned to CaveatLector about things being lost thanks to the resetting, and that if he disagreed with my segment in the discussion page, then to delet only that section, and NOT reset the entire page.
He also mentioned that I should be reffered to WP:NOT. I have checked there. It even ASKS for discusion. I have tried to maintain a neutral point of view, using only VERIFIABLE facts presented as facts, no original research, and so on. If I am doing something wrong, will someone please be specific and tell me EXACTLY what I am doing wrong? I HAVE asked him to tell me, but he hasn't. Corrupt one 23:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Discussion
What is the status on this case? Certainly isn't closed, but i don't know if progress has been made. Wizardman 20:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
I know. He just does NOT seem to want to respond. I mentioned this on the Hero discusion page, but he said that he believes the mediator would contact him. It was mentioned in the Jesus Christ and Matyrs sections. Corrupt one 02:13, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- This childishness ("blame the other guy"?) is what I have had to deal with throughout in this matter>. Corrupt one also seems to think that this mediation field (or, for that matter, the entirety of Wikipedia, is for some sort of "debate" and that I'm supposed to make a "response" to him. I have outlined what my problems are in this case and have asked the mediator to please explain the policies to Corrupt One and he seemingly dropped out of the case after we gave our 'positions'. I'd like to appeal for help (again) for somebody to explain to him how wikikpedia articles are written and maintained and how WP is NOT a discussion forum. CaveatLectorTalk 13:57, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
As you may note from my parts, my main reason for putting things how they were when I had stuff up was that by your revisions and setting things to how they were BEFORE I added my stuff, you were removing OTHER PEOPLE THINGS I even TOLD you that if you objected to that part calling for discusion to just remove it, and to leave the other additions alone!
From what I can make out, you seem to believe that we should make changes to the article THEN discuse them. To do otherwise means talking about it before hand, WHICH I WAS TRYING TO DO!
Corrupt one 23:51, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Mediator Section
Snowolf is no longer available. The above is rather confusing.
To clarify WP policy, the talk page should not be used to debate a philosophical issue regarding the subject- it should be used to discuss changes to the article, and to debate on what should be included in the article where sources present differing views on a subject.
Reading through your discussion, I don't see that much of the commenting on heroism is necessary. If something has been sourced as a fact or opinion, place it in the article and cite it, assuming it doesn't give credence to a fringe theory or something similar. If it does, discuss it on the talk page.
Per mediation, are all parties still willing to continue after a short hiatus?
The Rhymesmith 07:45, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- That would be alright with me> CaveatLectorTalk 15:03, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree with you Rymesmith. When I added things, it was not to debate the philosophical issues, but to make people look at the issues and see what there was, and show what they have found. I even ASKED people for what they had on those issues so they could be added to the article.
What really got things put stirred up was that CaveatLector kept reseting the page to an earlier debate to remove that section, and as a side effect removing all the other updates to that page. I told him that I would not mind so much him removing the segment, but to leave the rest of the page alone. THAT is what caused the arguement.
I guess that is pointless now as the segments in those articles have moved on. Still, I would like him to agree in future NOT to reset entire pages just to remove one segment. If he disagrees something being on a discusion page, he should put in the segment that it is NOT to be there and why. That will give the people making the segment an explanation as to WHY it is not to be there, and they can then address the issues raised in a manner that IS acceptable to Wikipedia policy. Can we agree on THAT much? Corrupt one 02:17, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
-
- I removed the edits, and there were many, that were treating the talk page as a discussion forum. A clear look at Corrupt one's edits and discussions on talk pages will reveal a lack of civility that borders on petulance. He is being argumentative for the sake of being argumentative and continually seems to think that Wikipedia is a grand form of usenet or something. This, obviously, causes a great amount of frustration on my part. I have repeatedly told him about the related policies, and referred to them, but he still seems to think that 'issues' can someone be 'raised' on talk pages in order to create discussion to place into the article. I am certainly not arguing anymore, and would prefer if a mediator would step in at this moment, because I really have no idea what else I can do. CaveatLectorTalk 04:22, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
I tried to raise issues in order to get an better understanding of them in order to make changes to the article based on those changes. I can accept that I may not of been very clear on that pupose in some case. What I was fustrated with was the fact that CaveatLector kept resetting the pages to an early date, removing ALL the updates since then. THAT is where I see this main problem being. If he wanted to remove segments I added, fine, I even told him he could do it. No arguement there at all.
What got me going was the loss of the addition to OTHER segments. Examples include me giving someone a books name and authors name for referance materal and other such things. THAT is the reason for me resetting the pages back to how they were WITH those parts in it. I had even made sure that ALL the information added after he reset the pages were in fact readded after I reset the page.
The matter here is not about policy on what is acceptable, but on resetting pages. Resetting should only be done if there are massive changes (mainly vandalism) that can only be fixed by resetting the pages to an earlier version.
Can you see where I am comming from? Corrupt one 01:12, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
