| Wikipedia Mediation Cabal | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Article | Galveston Bay Area |
| Status | Closed |
| Request date | 09:06, 17 October 2009 (UTC) |
| Requesting party | Unknown |
| Parties involved | RJN, MCorazao |
| Mediator(s) | Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... |
| Comment | Stale |
Request details
Where is the dispute?
Galveston Bay Area Talk:Galveston Bay Area
Who is involved?
What is the dispute?
This particular article has attracted some strong feelings from editors interested in Houston. Most of the irritation has fallen off but RJN, for whatever reason, seems to be holding on to a lot of anger (I can speculate about the motives but I'll just stick to the facts). RJN's main stated concern has been POV. He initially placed banners on the article to that effect, added lots of citations, and stated on the talk page that he had concerns with the entire article. I responded and made a lot of edits to try to address his concerns. Some of the citations I felt were simply ridiculous so I simply removed them and explained on the talk page. RJN never responded to my comments and wouldn't remove the banners.
I put out a Peer Review request and stopped editing figuring (based on suggestions by other editors) that it was best to give the matter some space and wait for more feedback. After a few weeks BrianBoulton started a peer review (he got only partially done and is now out of town so the rest of the review is pending). Brian removed RJN's banners feeling they were unjustified and explained on the talk page.
After reading Brian's initial comments I figured, having some neutral commentary to work from, I could start editing again. Apparently this angered RJN as today he entered a slew of edits. In the article itself he made numerous edits including deleting whole paragraphs that he felt were biased. Most of the edits I felt essentially amounted to vandalism so I have reverted the changes (i.e. maybe it was appropriate to rephrase some of the things he had concerns about but simply deleting key paragraphs did not seem to me merited). On the talk page I had previously archived some of the closed discussions keeping RJN's discussion. RJN today reverted the talk page restoring the archived text but also deleting comments by some other editors including BrianBoulton.
His comments seem to indicate he really did not read very carefully anything I or anyone else had said. It seems to me he's acting based on rage. Some of his behavior (partially blocking progress by leaving the banners but refusing to discuss them; and removing key text that he objects to rather than trying to improve the text or discuss it) I would categorize as vandalism.
For the moment I am refraining from further edits barring any further malicious edits on the article.
What would you like to change about this?
I honestly don't know what a good solution here is. RJN is in general a respected editor so I think that he could certainly have some good input. But at this point his judgement seems to be clouded by anger and I don't know how to change that. Obviously the destructive behavior has to stop. I would like to get constructive input from him if that's possible.
How do you think we can help?
If somebody can get to the root of why he is angry and work that out, great. Otherwise, I wonder if it isn't appropriate for somebody to suggest that he move on to something else. I guess what I am asking is for somebody to see if he will open up and agree to redirect his efforts. If he is not willing to do that, IMHO, this should be referred to an admin who can limit his access to the article.
Mediator notes
Accepting case. From the looks of things, there seems to be a mixture of content and conduct issues. On the surface, it appears the conduct issues are more prominent, but we will try mediation, if for no other reason than it tends to be less abrasive than a user conduct rfc. I'd ask both of you to enter a statement describing how you see the situation at present. We will proceed from there. I don't care much for incivility, and reserve the right to strikeout personal attacks or assumptions of bad faith. Pretty hard to resolve a dispute peacefully if discussion isn't civil. :). I'm going to reasess the situation, as well as the article in question, in the meantime, please write your opening comments. Thanks, Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 22:52, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
- Looking over the talk page, things seem to be going well at the moment. A dispute that can be resolved without intervention is the best possible outcome. Is my help still needed? Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 01:19, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Administrative notes
Discussion
Opening statement: Steven, thanks for taking an interest. I'm not sure what more to say beyond the description up front. Certainly the article can do with some improvement and I have solicited advice for that reason. And certainly I would like to see other editors contribute as well, provided the edits are intended to be constructive. All I am looking for at the moment is a way to move forward. -- Mcorazao ( talk) 21:22, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
- Breakthrough: RJN and I have gone back and forth for the last couple of days today he really went the extra mile to show good faith and deserves congratuations for it.
- I believe we may be on the way to breaking the impasse. Any advice is still welcome but I think we may actually be getting over the hump.
- -- Mcorazao ( talk) 18:50, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
| Wikipedia Mediation Cabal | |
|---|---|
|
| |
| Article | Galveston Bay Area |
| Status | Closed |
| Request date | 09:06, 17 October 2009 (UTC) |
| Requesting party | Unknown |
| Parties involved | RJN, MCorazao |
| Mediator(s) | Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... |
| Comment | Stale |
Request details
Where is the dispute?
Galveston Bay Area Talk:Galveston Bay Area
Who is involved?
What is the dispute?
This particular article has attracted some strong feelings from editors interested in Houston. Most of the irritation has fallen off but RJN, for whatever reason, seems to be holding on to a lot of anger (I can speculate about the motives but I'll just stick to the facts). RJN's main stated concern has been POV. He initially placed banners on the article to that effect, added lots of citations, and stated on the talk page that he had concerns with the entire article. I responded and made a lot of edits to try to address his concerns. Some of the citations I felt were simply ridiculous so I simply removed them and explained on the talk page. RJN never responded to my comments and wouldn't remove the banners.
I put out a Peer Review request and stopped editing figuring (based on suggestions by other editors) that it was best to give the matter some space and wait for more feedback. After a few weeks BrianBoulton started a peer review (he got only partially done and is now out of town so the rest of the review is pending). Brian removed RJN's banners feeling they were unjustified and explained on the talk page.
After reading Brian's initial comments I figured, having some neutral commentary to work from, I could start editing again. Apparently this angered RJN as today he entered a slew of edits. In the article itself he made numerous edits including deleting whole paragraphs that he felt were biased. Most of the edits I felt essentially amounted to vandalism so I have reverted the changes (i.e. maybe it was appropriate to rephrase some of the things he had concerns about but simply deleting key paragraphs did not seem to me merited). On the talk page I had previously archived some of the closed discussions keeping RJN's discussion. RJN today reverted the talk page restoring the archived text but also deleting comments by some other editors including BrianBoulton.
His comments seem to indicate he really did not read very carefully anything I or anyone else had said. It seems to me he's acting based on rage. Some of his behavior (partially blocking progress by leaving the banners but refusing to discuss them; and removing key text that he objects to rather than trying to improve the text or discuss it) I would categorize as vandalism.
For the moment I am refraining from further edits barring any further malicious edits on the article.
What would you like to change about this?
I honestly don't know what a good solution here is. RJN is in general a respected editor so I think that he could certainly have some good input. But at this point his judgement seems to be clouded by anger and I don't know how to change that. Obviously the destructive behavior has to stop. I would like to get constructive input from him if that's possible.
How do you think we can help?
If somebody can get to the root of why he is angry and work that out, great. Otherwise, I wonder if it isn't appropriate for somebody to suggest that he move on to something else. I guess what I am asking is for somebody to see if he will open up and agree to redirect his efforts. If he is not willing to do that, IMHO, this should be referred to an admin who can limit his access to the article.
Mediator notes
Accepting case. From the looks of things, there seems to be a mixture of content and conduct issues. On the surface, it appears the conduct issues are more prominent, but we will try mediation, if for no other reason than it tends to be less abrasive than a user conduct rfc. I'd ask both of you to enter a statement describing how you see the situation at present. We will proceed from there. I don't care much for incivility, and reserve the right to strikeout personal attacks or assumptions of bad faith. Pretty hard to resolve a dispute peacefully if discussion isn't civil. :). I'm going to reasess the situation, as well as the article in question, in the meantime, please write your opening comments. Thanks, Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 22:52, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
- Looking over the talk page, things seem to be going well at the moment. A dispute that can be resolved without intervention is the best possible outcome. Is my help still needed? Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 01:19, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Administrative notes
Discussion
Opening statement: Steven, thanks for taking an interest. I'm not sure what more to say beyond the description up front. Certainly the article can do with some improvement and I have solicited advice for that reason. And certainly I would like to see other editors contribute as well, provided the edits are intended to be constructive. All I am looking for at the moment is a way to move forward. -- Mcorazao ( talk) 21:22, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
- Breakthrough: RJN and I have gone back and forth for the last couple of days today he really went the extra mile to show good faith and deserves congratuations for it.
- I believe we may be on the way to breaking the impasse. Any advice is still welcome but I think we may actually be getting over the hump.
- -- Mcorazao ( talk) 18:50, 21 October 2009 (UTC)