Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Complaints/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Self-criticism of the Mediation Cabal

[edit] Skull and how mediation works

Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/1_01_2006_Skull_(symbolism)

Yeah, sorry about that was my misunderstanding of the process. When i said responded, it meant I'd responded to the request. I've changed this to in mediation which I think is more appropriate. - FrancisTyers 15:26, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
What's the proper sequence? Is mediator responded the initial comment that a mediator has picked up the case, followed by in mediation? I assumed mediator responded and mediator response given to be synonymous. --Fasten 10:45, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Well, I don't know, I guess people have different rules, as of now I'm using "in mediation" for when I'm talking to them and "mediator responded" for when I've issued the response per the page and closed the case. I may be wrong. - FrancisTyers 11:56, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Fasten and Francis,

I do not know either, which is ok since the cabal is informal by nature and should be. I assume "in mediation" comes before the "response." Generally, my experience with mediation is that it proceeds in this manner:
request is made →
mediator accepts case →
facts are stated from both side (this step and the previous could be reversed) →
mediator requests more facts (if needed) \leftrightarrow responses and answers to mediator (if needed) →
mediator recommends a solution \leftrightarrow users respond to recommendation →
mediator make final recommendation → case is closed.

Since the cabal is informal, how the mediator notes these steps should be informal, as well. Hope this helps. SteveMc 16:33, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vizcarra and Mailyn

Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/14_12_2005_Vizcarra_and_User:Mailyn

  • I think the mediator response here is not quite what the mediation cabal should aim for because it contains the personal preference of the mediator as the main argument and concludes with an imperative. I would like to suggest that both should be avoided. The mediation cabal has, by design, no authority and should try to be impartial. --Fasten 13:59, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Complaints

[edit] Neutrality dispute

I am questioning the neutrality of one of the mediators in this mediation group. Specifically, there was a dispute on the Personal rapid transit page that was spiraling out of control. I requested mediation, and the case was taken up by KrazyCaley.

Before KrazyCaley could speak a word on the matter, another mediator, Sdedeo jumped in and made snap judgements having read only a small section of the discussion (evident because he only commented on points raised very early in the discussion section). He ignored all evidence that one side of the debate was made up of a single anti-PRT activist who had vandalized the page several times in the past, and he admonished the rest of us for "not addressing his concerns" even though the talk page clearly documents our exasperation at not having enough detail to address the concerns.

Even after Sdedeo's comments, we tried to be cooperative, making a few minor changes to address his documented concerns. But the activist (of course!) did not go away. He again began making vague challenges again.

That's when Sdedeo decided to drop out because he was too busy. So his mediation consisted of (a) jumping into a dispute that some other mediator had already taken, (b) making a very one-sided judgement that clearly showed he'd read hardly any of the discussion page, and (c) dropping out when the activist that started it all returned and started making vague accusations of neutrality again.

Is this the work of a neutral mediator?

My question is: why did Sdedeo jump into this dispute when it was not his mediation? Why did he not read the entire dispute before making his very one-sided judgement? Why did he not consider the very extreme POV of the one person who brought up the dispute? Why did he drop out when the activist resumed his attacks?

It all seems quite fishy to me, and it seriously calls into question the neutrality of Sdedeo, and indeed, this entire mediation group. I am going to question the neutrality of this cabal until Sdedeo can provide some proof that he did not have an agenda when he jumped into this dispute.

I explicitly said when making my first comment that I was not acting as a mediator [1] and that "KC was in charge." [2] I stopped by as a fellow editor, and made some remarks, fixed some minor problems in the article, explained to each of the sides of the dispute that they would have to play nicer, and left. I can promise ATE that I was (and continue!) to be acting in good faith here; I have no vested interest in PRT and only found the article because of his mediation request. Sdedeo (tips) 17:47, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
But that's what's so fishy about it: if you were not acting as mediator, then why did you get involved? Obviously you did not invest the time required to contribute in any meaningful way, and yet you felt the need to admonish the authors for very minor POV issues while saying nothing about the activist who has a history of vandalism!
Again, this seems very fishy to me, and I'm still not convinced. My basic beef is, if you were so busy, Sdedeo, then why did you get involved in the first place? Especially if you had no intention of following through?
Mediation is a very delicate matter, and you were anything but delicate in this instance. You were careless and impulsive. The very fact that you got involved in such a haphazard way greatly concerns me, especially given how quickly you backed out when it was clear that the activist was not backing down.
Question, Sdedeo: did you read the entire discussion section? Did you count how many times we asked him to fix any problems he saw? Did you see his responses to those problems (mostly just vague complaints supported by biased links)?
I think this needs to be explored more deeply if this is group is to have any real credibility as neutral mediators.

ATE, I clearly identified that I was not in charge of the mediation. I also explained above why I got involved in the article: I saw your request, clicked on the article, identified a problem and fixed it. You yourself actually thanked me for fixing it! [3] I don't like now being accused of bad faith, called a moron [4], etc.; I'll leave it to other folks watching the page to deal with the NPOV tag, etc. and won't respond further. Sdedeo (tips) 19:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of whether you were in charge of mediation or not, the fact is, you went in and mediated! And half-heartedly at that! I still don't understand why you got involved if (a) you were not the mediator, (b) you didn't bother to read the entire discussion, and (c) you didn't intend to follow through! You gave the impression of mediation, and then did a very poor job of it.
I did initially thank you for your suggestions, but after you abruptly left I reviewed your comments, and I sensed a disproportionate amount of hostility towards the article itself, which was written in good faith, and not a word about the known vandal who was making vague and impossible demands!
And then, later, after we made efforts to correct the problems, when the activist again challenged the article with vague complaints, I waited for your response (surely you, as de facto mediator if not actual mediator, will now respond to the activist!)
But instead you copped the "too busy" plea and disappeared! If you were so busy then why did you get involved in the first place?
This is when I began suspecting your motives and POV.
At best, it was very bad judgement. At worst, I feel that the evidence shows that either (a) you had a POV regarding this topic, or (b) you might even have had a sympathy for the user involved, based on shared world view or maybe even something more (perhaps you know Avidor personally, or know of him?). Honestly, I don't know. But either way I have very strong concerns about how you, as a member of this mediation group, handled this situation, whether you were the official mediator or not.
One more thing: I do apologize for the name-calling, Sdedeo. It was an inappropriate response that I made in frustration at your sudden departure from the debate you had just inserted yourself into.
I refer you to the mediation, if I can use such a term, on the Tyrone Power mediation cabal page. The statements speak for themselves. It has now become a free-for-all with even more people editing the page without discussion. The mediator is new and trying very hard for a balance, but is dealing with a very bad situation. I submitted this case. I then accepted a case from the cabal, worked on it, and closed it, and I would have told you the people on that case were further apart than in the one I submitted. Talk about lunatics taking over the asylum. I am done with wikipedia and the agendas it promotes.Chandler75

Why was the NPOV tag removed?

[edit] Dispute Resolution Process

The Wikipedia mediation/arbitration process isn't clear to me.

I don't have a lot of time to learn the complicated system you have to resolve disputes at Wikipedia.

I am mentioned by name in the Wikipedia personal rapid transit article and attacked by name on the PRT Talk page and my Talk page and other Wikipedia pages by anonymous authors.

This is what those anonymous authors have said about me:

"You're on crack." [5]

"Avidor's psychotic interjections " [6]

"Unreasonable, destructive, irrational, unwilling to debate changes. This is Avidor's history on Wikipedia"

"...his actions are based in mental illness rather than reason."

One of these anonymous accusers has made these statements about me to mediators:

"So now you're bowing out ,eh? You went in and empowered that fucking idiot and now you're dropping it on the floor. You are as much a moron as he is. "

[7]

"Avidor is an 'extremist'."

[8]

Why do you allow anonymous authors to post this stuff?

Like John Seigenthaler Sr., I think I deserve to have a chance to clear my name and have this dispute resolved as quickly as possible.

Who at Wikipedia is accountable? Who is in charge?

Thank you,

Ken Avidor

Avidor 18:44, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Avidor conveniently fails to mention that he was the aggressor in this conflict, repeatedly calling the editors of the Personal rapid transit article "cultists" because he happens to very much against the technology presented in the article. Now that moderators are involved and he's close to getting banned, he's trying to play the victim. Don't fall for it. Look at the history and judge for yourselves who is the aggressor here. By the way, I've clearly indicated that I am the author of much of the "anonymous" content on that page -- I've never tried to hide that. A Transportation Enthusiast 02:14, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Now would be a great time to calm down. Just zis Guy you know? 11:37, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mediator Should Not Join Sides!

I wish to complain about the appointment of Wade Tisthammer to mediate a dispute similar to the ones that he himself is embroiled in and has been causing a great deal of strife among a number of Wiki administrators and editors. On March 11, he was appointed to mediate the long-standing dispute over whether self-published attack pieces on personal web pages can be referenced in the Natasha Demkina article. A few words after saying, "Hi" and announcing that he is the new administrator, he began arguing for the inclusion of one of these references. He admited to not having read the web material in question and he clearly had no idea what my arguments were against using this material. [9]Nevertheless, after introducing himself, he said referencing that source seemed reasonable. After much debating with him over the past few days, he still claims he doesn't know what my reasons are for objecting to what he calls his "compromise." His idea of a "compromise" is to permit what I say is a clear violation of Wiki guidelines regarding the citation of self-published material from personal web pages. Because he is violating two of the most important Mediation Cabal guidelines, I have asked him to step down as mediator [10]:

6. Try to be impartial and not to bring up your own opinion, unless that seems to be inevitable, e.g. when asked for a third opinion. You can also use such an opportunity to make people request a third opinion, put up a request for comment or conduct a survey, which may encourage them to get along without a mediator next time.

7. If you are not or no longer impartial please pass the case on to another mediator.

He does not appear to be willing to do so. Whether he steps down or not, he has become a disputant and is clearly not competent to mediate. Askolnick 01:44, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I assigned Wade Tisthammer to the case. The Mediation Cabal has no formal process and anybody can be a mediator; there are no qualifying criteria. If a mediator is not acceptable you are free to ignore him or her or agree with the other disputants on a different mediator. Wade Tisthammer is a volunteer and has offered to mediate in an arbitrary case where ve was unlikely to have any personal interests. Instead of condemning vim based on earlier behaviour, that may have been inadequate for a mediator, it would have been preferrable to demand that ve should conduct the negotiations in an acceptable manner.
See Wikipedia_talk:Mediation_Cabal#Kantian_guilt.3F --Fasten 12:51, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps it would be more productive to replace unacceptable mediators, and/or have some kind of follow-up feedback rating system (the mediator helped, the mediator did not help, the mediator never showed.) The last one this bad was Bonaparte, and I cannot say he improved the reputation of the MC any. Having a mediator who is not mediating is worse than useless, and if the people involved cannot work with the mediator, depsite having agreed to mediation, there is something wrong. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua?!? 20:20, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
For my own defense, I "congratulated" both sides for having understandable viewpoints. For one side, I used the phrase "seems reasonable on the surface" but I also said that Askolnick brought up some "excellent" points and that his viewpoint was very (yes, I used italics) understandable. Maybe such an attempt at reconciliation was a mistake, but Askolnick gives the impression that I only did this sort of thing to one side. Did I claim not to know his reasons? To a certain extent I might have done so (certainly I remember being puzzled by them). Why? Well, when I tried to clarify some points with some questions, he didn't answer them. For instance, he pointed out that personal websites cannot be used as secondary sources under WP:RS. I thought this was an excellent point, and I believed I found a way to satisfy his WP:RS concerns. Since the following text was already in the article, "Brian Josephson charged that Demkina's four matches represented a statistically significant result" we could cite the web page as a primary source (allowable under WP:RS) since Josephson surely knows firsthand what his own views are. This would seem to satisfy both parties involved: Askolnick's WP:RS concerns and the other party's desire to include the web page in some way. Still, he rejected this compromise and it was unclear why. I asked the following questions: "Are you now saying Josephson's criticism should no longer be included in the Wikipedia entry? If you do think it should remain in the Wikipedia entry, why not rely on a primary, first-hand source since this is allowable under WP:RS--the basis of your original objection?" He did not answer such questions however, and has since made repeated violations of WP:NPA and WP:AGF both at me and several other editors. For instance, Brian Josephson--the Nobel Prize winning physicist--stopped by here in the discussion section at Wikipedia. Askolnick soon made remarks like, "Brian Josephson's charge is a really sleazy lie" in in this section. Askolnick is in fact one of those responsible for the testing of Natasha Demkina (the web page in question criticizes the statistical conclusions of that test) so perhaps some friction might be expected, though that still doesn't excuse his personal attacks. --Wade A. Tisthammer 21:45, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
To quote WP:NOT:
Self-promotion. The arbitration committee ruled on February 17, 2006 that: "Editors should avoid contributing to articles about themselves or subjects in which they are personally involved, as it is difficult to maintain NPOV while doing so." [11] Creating overly abundant links and references to autobiographical articles, or to articles in which you have a personal stake, is similarly unacceptable. See Wikipedia:Autobiography and Wikipedia:Notability. --Fasten 20:29, 12 April 2006 (UTC)