Please observe Wikipedia:Etiquette and Talk Page Etiquette in disputes. If you submit complaints or insults your edits are likely to be removed by the mediator, any other refactoring of the mediation case by anybody but the mediator is likely to be reverted. If you are not satisfied with the mediation procedure please submit your complaints to Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal.
Request Information
- Request made by: JMax555 21:56, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- Where is the issue taking place?
- Golden Dawn tradition
- Who's involved?
- various members of the community of the Golden Dawn, and esoteric spiritual movement.
- What's going on?
- After a long process of "edit wars" early in 2006, a generally agreed upon version of the article was hammered out and the edit wars discontinued. A request to the Mediation Cabal had been made last January, but by the time the mediator got around to it the disputes had settled down and we all thought the problem had been solved. Then, in the last two weeks, another person came along Frater Fiat Lux, and began making biased-POV edtis to the article again. First he did so anonymously. He ignored repeated requests to discuss the changes in Talk before making them. His continuous edits and attempts by myself and others to revert to the previous form of the article brought it to the attention of administrator JKelly, who has now locked down the article, but in the form of the biased-POV version made by Frater Fiat Lux.
- The revision history and Talk pages of the article will explain more about the dispute.
- What would you like to change about that?
- I would like the article to be reverted to the form it was in before Frater Fiat Lux began his editing and re-editing, and it was locked down. (If anything, it should be locked in the form that was generally agreed upon months ago, not the biased version it is currently locked to.) I would like Frater Fiat Lux to discuss any changes to the article in Talk BEFORE he makes them.
- If you'd prefer we work discreetly, how can we reach you?
- I prefer it be done in the open. But I can be reached at maxx58585@yahoo.com if need be.
- Would you be willing to be a mediator yourself, and accept a mediation assignment in a different case?
- This is, following the Categorical Imperative, the idea that you might want to do
- what you expect others to do. You don't have to, of course, that's why it's a question.
- Yes
Mediator response
I'l take this. I think this may need to go to the arbitratin commitee to be perfectly honest but I will try my best to bring some order to the mediation. -- Tmorton166 (Errant Emote) talk 17:26, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- The article in question has been merged to Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn. Disputes have since ceased (note: I'm a major contributor to the article). Closing case. SynergeticMaggot 18:45, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Evidence
Please report evidence in this section with {{
Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Evidence}} for misconduct and {{
Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Evidence3RR}} for
3RR violations. If you need
help ask a
mediator or an
advocate. Evidence is of limited use in mediation as the mediator has no authority. Providing some evidence may, however, be useful in making both sides act more civil.
Wikipedia:Etiquette: Although it's understandably difficult in a heated argument, if the other party is not as civil as you'd like them to be, make sure to be more civil than him or her, not less.
Compromise offers
This section is for listing and discussing compromise offers.
Comments by others
Having found this whole can of worms by having another editor's talk page on my watch list, I'm getting increasingly disturbed by the repeated use of legal terminology by one of the parties to this dispute. It suggests that the party is portraying themselves as a legal expert, and possibly one involved in litigation on this very subject, and I feel that inherently biases and possibly endangers wikipedia's status as a neutral resource. Occasionally the wording has bordered on what some might consider to be threats of legal action. This really needs to not happen on wikipedia, and I do hope the Foundation's general counsel has been made aware of it.-- Vidkun 02:26, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
While using the talk page of the article in question to solve a dispute is encouraged to involve a larger audience, feel free to discuss the case below if that is not possible. Other mediators are also encouraged to join in on the discussion as Wikipedia is based on consensus.
Discussion
Please observe Wikipedia:Etiquette and Talk Page Etiquette in disputes. If you submit complaints or insults your edits are likely to be removed by the mediator, any other refactoring of the mediation case by anybody but the mediator is likely to be reverted. If you are not satisfied with the mediation procedure please submit your complaints to Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal.
Request Information
- Request made by: JMax555 21:56, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- Where is the issue taking place?
- Golden Dawn tradition
- Who's involved?
- various members of the community of the Golden Dawn, and esoteric spiritual movement.
- What's going on?
- After a long process of "edit wars" early in 2006, a generally agreed upon version of the article was hammered out and the edit wars discontinued. A request to the Mediation Cabal had been made last January, but by the time the mediator got around to it the disputes had settled down and we all thought the problem had been solved. Then, in the last two weeks, another person came along Frater Fiat Lux, and began making biased-POV edtis to the article again. First he did so anonymously. He ignored repeated requests to discuss the changes in Talk before making them. His continuous edits and attempts by myself and others to revert to the previous form of the article brought it to the attention of administrator JKelly, who has now locked down the article, but in the form of the biased-POV version made by Frater Fiat Lux.
- The revision history and Talk pages of the article will explain more about the dispute.
- What would you like to change about that?
- I would like the article to be reverted to the form it was in before Frater Fiat Lux began his editing and re-editing, and it was locked down. (If anything, it should be locked in the form that was generally agreed upon months ago, not the biased version it is currently locked to.) I would like Frater Fiat Lux to discuss any changes to the article in Talk BEFORE he makes them.
- If you'd prefer we work discreetly, how can we reach you?
- I prefer it be done in the open. But I can be reached at maxx58585@yahoo.com if need be.
- Would you be willing to be a mediator yourself, and accept a mediation assignment in a different case?
- This is, following the Categorical Imperative, the idea that you might want to do
- what you expect others to do. You don't have to, of course, that's why it's a question.
- Yes
Mediator response
I'l take this. I think this may need to go to the arbitratin commitee to be perfectly honest but I will try my best to bring some order to the mediation. -- Tmorton166 (Errant Emote) talk 17:26, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- The article in question has been merged to Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn. Disputes have since ceased (note: I'm a major contributor to the article). Closing case. SynergeticMaggot 18:45, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Evidence
Please report evidence in this section with {{
Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Evidence}} for misconduct and {{
Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Evidence3RR}} for
3RR violations. If you need
help ask a
mediator or an
advocate. Evidence is of limited use in mediation as the mediator has no authority. Providing some evidence may, however, be useful in making both sides act more civil.
Wikipedia:Etiquette: Although it's understandably difficult in a heated argument, if the other party is not as civil as you'd like them to be, make sure to be more civil than him or her, not less.
Compromise offers
This section is for listing and discussing compromise offers.
Comments by others
Having found this whole can of worms by having another editor's talk page on my watch list, I'm getting increasingly disturbed by the repeated use of legal terminology by one of the parties to this dispute. It suggests that the party is portraying themselves as a legal expert, and possibly one involved in litigation on this very subject, and I feel that inherently biases and possibly endangers wikipedia's status as a neutral resource. Occasionally the wording has bordered on what some might consider to be threats of legal action. This really needs to not happen on wikipedia, and I do hope the Foundation's general counsel has been made aware of it.-- Vidkun 02:26, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
While using the talk page of the article in question to solve a dispute is encouraged to involve a larger audience, feel free to discuss the case below if that is not possible. Other mediators are also encouraged to join in on the discussion as Wikipedia is based on consensus.