Case Filed On: 17:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedian filing request:
Other Wikipedians this pertains to:
Wikipedia pages this pertains to:
Have you read the AMA FAQ?
How would you describe the nature of this dispute? (policy violation, content dispute, personal attack, other)
What methods of Dispute Resolution have you tried so far? If you can, please provide wikilinks so that the Advocate looking over this case can see what you have done.
What do you expect to get from Advocacy?
Editors Sethie and Tanaats have de facto control over the article on Transcendental Meditation. Both are vocal critics. Tanaats has a web site devoted to opposing Transcendental Meditation. Without discussion Sethie inserts material from poor sources -- POV web sites, studies not published in scientific journals and not peer reviewed, random quotes from newspaper articles, quotes from uncorroborated primary source documents. If I challenge and delete, he immediately reverts. And Tanaats supports his every move. I'm not an edit warrior (unlike Sethie) and unlike Sethie and Tanaats, I have a day job, so Sethie wins every time. I then begin a discussion arguing my case -- which can take days. Twice now they've acquiesced regarding problematic sources, but mostly they stand firm. And on those two occasions where I did seem to prevail, it only angered Sethie and led to a new round of insertions of weak material. I don't understand why Sethie's version should be the default and I'm forced to argue for taking it out, especially since he has such a poor track record.
There are so many things that seem like they shouldn't be there. We're currently arguing about a study that wasn't published in an academic journal and that wasn't peer reviewed. Also, we're debating the source of highly controversial statements from an affidavit quoted by The Skeptic's Dictionary. The latter cites a POV web site. The POV web site cites a court case. Yet, when I checked with the court, the affidavit isn't part of the court record. Its only existence is on POV sites. Another issue is undue weight -- the article is now about two-thirds criticism and controversy.
An advocate could help give perspective -- to suggest whether these controversial sources are legitimate or not. And if not, could help me get started with Dispute Resolution -- something that seems to be the next step. And an advocate could possibly help show me how to create a more level playing field so that the additions to the article aren't so carelessly made, without consensus.
I just had to take this. I would go to WP:TINC and file a mediation case as that is generally the first step of DR. (plus it looks good if you have to go to Arbcom) G e o. 22:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Personally I would file a Medcab case first, because an RfC isn't binding per se. G e o. 05:51, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I have been thinking over the last couple of days. From what you told me, this may be a Medcom case. Mediation on Wikipedia is the first step in DR. There are two forms, Formal and informal. Informal mediation is conducted by the Mediation Cabal(Medcab). Medcab mediators try to get get both parties to come to a reasonable compromise, generally this works. Most cases are filed in Medcab . Medcab cases are usually small disputes that wrap up quickly. Formal mediation is conducted according to the Mediation policy by the Mediation Committee (Medcom). Medcom cases are big disputes that take longer to resolve. I am not that familiar with Medcom, because Medcab is generally more popular, but you can read the Mediation policy or Medcom page to learn more about it. I think that you may need to file for formal mediation, because of the magnitude of this dispute. G e o. 20:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, Geo, for your recent suggestion to ask Computerjoe what sort of process he had in mind. And thanks for your suggestions, Martin. Again, I really appreciate the sincere effort on the part of everyone to help.
The article has been fairly stable the past two weeks, and the battleground issue has receded somewhat. For now I want to hold off on moving forward with mediation. I'm hoping to use this stable period as an opportunity for some RfCs -- something that was difficult earlier because of the problems noted above on this page. The parties to the disputes have agreed, at various times, that specific issues would benefit from input. TimidGuy 12:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi, Geo. Things are a problem again. Please see my post on Sethie's advocacy page. TimidGuy 17:29, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi, Geo. It would be great if you could explain to me what it means that Computerjoe has changed the status of the case to "Under Investigation" and what he means that he has referred the case to the co-ordinators office for investigation. Thanks! TimidGuy 16:04, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi, Geo. Thanks for your message on my Talk page a few days ago. So here's an update: we did an RfC on a specific issue, and had somewhat ambiguous results. The two commenters, who are both experienced contributors to the guidelines,seemed to support my interpretation of the guidelines -- that a particular source may not meet the criteria for secondary sources and that it wasn't neutral. But still we couldn't resolve things, and we concluded by agreeing that mediation could help us. [3] We had been talking about the need for dispute resolution, but I think we had a misunderstanding of mediation, at least I did. I was thinking of it as sort of a court. But now we're starting to understand that it's a process whereby editors try to learn to work together and collaborate. Tanaats, Olive, and I agreed that this would be useful.
What do you think? Earlier you had suggested Medcom, and to me that seems to be the vehicle that we need. It seems like it would involve me, Tanaats, Sethie, Olive, and Duedilly. The latlter two have been somewhat more active lately. Chemistryprof hasn't appeared in a while. Sparaig's involvement is intermittent. If we go the Medcom route, should Sparaig also be named? He doesn't seem to get actively involved in the disputes but does offer relevant research and comments. He's been more active the past few days.
Eager to know your thoughts. TimidGuy 12:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your note on my Talk page. I went ahead and filed a mediation request -- and made it fairly broad. I should have discussed that with you a bit. I appreciate your initially pointing me in the direction of Medcome. I think the parties involved are ready to try to figure out a way to collaborate rather than dispute. TimidGuy 18:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Geo, I thought that I left you a message earlier, but I must have forgotten to save it. As you've probably noticed, our mediation request has been accepted. Do you think that I should approach a mediator and invite him to take the case. I see in the instructions that that's allowed. If you think that idea is OK, do you have any input on how to select which one to approach? Thanks. TimidGuy 16:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Ignore the above. We were fortunate to have a very experienced mediator take the case. TimidGuy 15:46, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
When the case is finished, please take a minute to fill out the following survey:
Did you find the Advocacy process useful?
Did your Advocate handle your case in an appropriate manner?
On a scale of 1 (worst) to 5 (best), how polite was your Advocate?
On a scale of 1 to 5, how effective do you feel your Advocate was in solving the problem?
On a scale of 1 to 5, how effective do you feel the Advocacy process is altogether?
If there were one thing that you would like to see different in the Advocacy process, what would it be?
If you were to deal with this dispute again, what would you do differently, if anything?
Case Status: closed
Advocate Status:
Case Filed On: 17:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedian filing request:
Other Wikipedians this pertains to:
Wikipedia pages this pertains to:
Have you read the AMA FAQ?
How would you describe the nature of this dispute? (policy violation, content dispute, personal attack, other)
What methods of Dispute Resolution have you tried so far? If you can, please provide wikilinks so that the Advocate looking over this case can see what you have done.
What do you expect to get from Advocacy?
Editors Sethie and Tanaats have de facto control over the article on Transcendental Meditation. Both are vocal critics. Tanaats has a web site devoted to opposing Transcendental Meditation. Without discussion Sethie inserts material from poor sources -- POV web sites, studies not published in scientific journals and not peer reviewed, random quotes from newspaper articles, quotes from uncorroborated primary source documents. If I challenge and delete, he immediately reverts. And Tanaats supports his every move. I'm not an edit warrior (unlike Sethie) and unlike Sethie and Tanaats, I have a day job, so Sethie wins every time. I then begin a discussion arguing my case -- which can take days. Twice now they've acquiesced regarding problematic sources, but mostly they stand firm. And on those two occasions where I did seem to prevail, it only angered Sethie and led to a new round of insertions of weak material. I don't understand why Sethie's version should be the default and I'm forced to argue for taking it out, especially since he has such a poor track record.
There are so many things that seem like they shouldn't be there. We're currently arguing about a study that wasn't published in an academic journal and that wasn't peer reviewed. Also, we're debating the source of highly controversial statements from an affidavit quoted by The Skeptic's Dictionary. The latter cites a POV web site. The POV web site cites a court case. Yet, when I checked with the court, the affidavit isn't part of the court record. Its only existence is on POV sites. Another issue is undue weight -- the article is now about two-thirds criticism and controversy.
An advocate could help give perspective -- to suggest whether these controversial sources are legitimate or not. And if not, could help me get started with Dispute Resolution -- something that seems to be the next step. And an advocate could possibly help show me how to create a more level playing field so that the additions to the article aren't so carelessly made, without consensus.
I just had to take this. I would go to WP:TINC and file a mediation case as that is generally the first step of DR. (plus it looks good if you have to go to Arbcom) G e o. 22:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Personally I would file a Medcab case first, because an RfC isn't binding per se. G e o. 05:51, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I have been thinking over the last couple of days. From what you told me, this may be a Medcom case. Mediation on Wikipedia is the first step in DR. There are two forms, Formal and informal. Informal mediation is conducted by the Mediation Cabal(Medcab). Medcab mediators try to get get both parties to come to a reasonable compromise, generally this works. Most cases are filed in Medcab . Medcab cases are usually small disputes that wrap up quickly. Formal mediation is conducted according to the Mediation policy by the Mediation Committee (Medcom). Medcom cases are big disputes that take longer to resolve. I am not that familiar with Medcom, because Medcab is generally more popular, but you can read the Mediation policy or Medcom page to learn more about it. I think that you may need to file for formal mediation, because of the magnitude of this dispute. G e o. 20:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, Geo, for your recent suggestion to ask Computerjoe what sort of process he had in mind. And thanks for your suggestions, Martin. Again, I really appreciate the sincere effort on the part of everyone to help.
The article has been fairly stable the past two weeks, and the battleground issue has receded somewhat. For now I want to hold off on moving forward with mediation. I'm hoping to use this stable period as an opportunity for some RfCs -- something that was difficult earlier because of the problems noted above on this page. The parties to the disputes have agreed, at various times, that specific issues would benefit from input. TimidGuy 12:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi, Geo. Things are a problem again. Please see my post on Sethie's advocacy page. TimidGuy 17:29, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi, Geo. It would be great if you could explain to me what it means that Computerjoe has changed the status of the case to "Under Investigation" and what he means that he has referred the case to the co-ordinators office for investigation. Thanks! TimidGuy 16:04, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi, Geo. Thanks for your message on my Talk page a few days ago. So here's an update: we did an RfC on a specific issue, and had somewhat ambiguous results. The two commenters, who are both experienced contributors to the guidelines,seemed to support my interpretation of the guidelines -- that a particular source may not meet the criteria for secondary sources and that it wasn't neutral. But still we couldn't resolve things, and we concluded by agreeing that mediation could help us. [3] We had been talking about the need for dispute resolution, but I think we had a misunderstanding of mediation, at least I did. I was thinking of it as sort of a court. But now we're starting to understand that it's a process whereby editors try to learn to work together and collaborate. Tanaats, Olive, and I agreed that this would be useful.
What do you think? Earlier you had suggested Medcom, and to me that seems to be the vehicle that we need. It seems like it would involve me, Tanaats, Sethie, Olive, and Duedilly. The latlter two have been somewhat more active lately. Chemistryprof hasn't appeared in a while. Sparaig's involvement is intermittent. If we go the Medcom route, should Sparaig also be named? He doesn't seem to get actively involved in the disputes but does offer relevant research and comments. He's been more active the past few days.
Eager to know your thoughts. TimidGuy 12:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your note on my Talk page. I went ahead and filed a mediation request -- and made it fairly broad. I should have discussed that with you a bit. I appreciate your initially pointing me in the direction of Medcome. I think the parties involved are ready to try to figure out a way to collaborate rather than dispute. TimidGuy 18:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Geo, I thought that I left you a message earlier, but I must have forgotten to save it. As you've probably noticed, our mediation request has been accepted. Do you think that I should approach a mediator and invite him to take the case. I see in the instructions that that's allowed. If you think that idea is OK, do you have any input on how to select which one to approach? Thanks. TimidGuy 16:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Ignore the above. We were fortunate to have a very experienced mediator take the case. TimidGuy 15:46, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
When the case is finished, please take a minute to fill out the following survey:
Did you find the Advocacy process useful?
Did your Advocate handle your case in an appropriate manner?
On a scale of 1 (worst) to 5 (best), how polite was your Advocate?
On a scale of 1 to 5, how effective do you feel your Advocate was in solving the problem?
On a scale of 1 to 5, how effective do you feel the Advocacy process is altogether?
If there were one thing that you would like to see different in the Advocacy process, what would it be?
If you were to deal with this dispute again, what would you do differently, if anything?
Case Status: closed
Advocate Status: