| Wikipedia Mediation Cabal | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Article | Catholic sex abuse cases |
| Status | Closed |
| Request date | 17:50, 25 May 2010 (UTC) |
| Requesting party | -- Eraserhead1 < talk> |
| Mediator(s) | Xavexgoem ( talk) |
| Comment | Closed? |
Request details
Where is the dispute?
Who is involved?
In alphabetical order:
- User:71.163.237.120
- User:Afterwriting
- User:Eraserhead1
- User:Farsight001
- User:Haldraper
- User:Joo
- User:Sturunner
What is the dispute?
The dispute is over whether the content of the article is pro or anti-catholic and how to move forward and improve the article and keep it neutral.
What would you like to change about this?
I'd like to stop the edit warring and constant reversions which occur a lot of the time when people make edits to both the talk page and the article itself.
How do you think we can help?
It would be good if you can help to keep the discussion on topic and to make sure that everyone is behaving civilly towards those with differing opinions on the talk page. When this spills over into the article it would be nice if this didn't descend into edit warring over which WP:WRONGVERSION is in the article at the time.
Unfortunately I don't feel we can solve this issue on our own.
Mediator notes / Potpourri
I'll take this case. Please sign here for acceptance:
- Xavexgoem ( talk)
- I accept mediation. Thanks -- Sturunner ( talk) 00:52, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- I must disagree to the nature of the problem. I believe 100% that the issue ultimately stems from the IP hopper soapboxing on the talk page and repeatedly adding BLP violations to the article. Any helpful suggestion results in a nasty response from said IP. Other than that... Farsight001 ( talk) 07:41, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
- I accept the mediation. -- Eraserhead1 < talk> 09:39, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
- My signature here is conditional. User Farsight001 must unconditionally drop street language used against me and false accusations. His/her interpretation of the Wikipedia policy is false, therefore not matter of any discussion.-- 71.191.30.202 ( talk) 14:48, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
- I agree to be involved in the mediation but I disagree that the "dispute" or "conflict" is essentially over whether the article is pro or anti Roman Catholic. I agree with Farsight001 above that the only real problem is the persistent disruptive soapboxing and BLP violations of an anonymous editor using various IP addresses. Afterwriting ( talk) 14:47, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Alright, before we proceed: I will be looking over the talk page archives on patterns of discussion. In the meantime, just for now, I request that both Farsight and 71.191.x.x abstain from focusing on each other. I would like to hear Farsight tell me what the BLP problem is, regardless of who's making them; and I would like to hear 71.191 interpretation of whichever policies, regardless of who's interpreting them falsely. I hope this is agreeable. Again, only for the time being. Xavexgoem ( talk) 16:40, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Carry on!
- Comment. Nothing is all right as long as I see the above 'explanation': I believe 100% that the issue ultimately stems from the IP hopper soapboxing on the talk page and repeatedly adding BLP violations to the article. Any helpful suggestion results in a nasty response from said IP. This text must be ultimately removed from this page.--
71.191.30.202 (
talk) 17:38, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
- As far as I can see Xavexgoem has made that clear by saying that Farsight shouldn't focus on individual users in the future. -- Eraserhead1 < talk> 17:48, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
As bad as any dispute can be... and I've seen bad disputes... there's usually an element of "Z sees X saying something bad, and now everything X says is bad", which gives X an opportunity to hate on Z (downward spiral!). It's reductionist, I know. But the important thing for any mediation is content, not contributors. If I see personal attacks, or things readably perceived as personal attacks, I will remove them or issue a Firmly Worded And Vaguely Threatening Statement. If any user is such an issue, I suggest you take him or her to AN/I to get the broader community's opinion. Ultimately, the expectation is that everyone act as editors, not as pro- or anti-'s, etc. I don't want to hear accusations of how so-and-so isn't acting like an editor without solid evidence.
Again, I ask: Farsight, what is the BLP problem, and how is 71 abusing it? 71: how is Farsight misinterpreting the consensus of policy? Both of you can be as short or long as you want in your reply, but brevity is also the soul of a quickly ending dispute. Xavexgoem ( talk) 18:35, 30 May 2010 (UTC) Also: I can contain soapboxing, which is a regular occurrence in any dispute, so please don't worry about that for now; I also have the talkpage watched. And I'm thinking of moving the mediation over there anyway
- Comment As far as I see street language used here to attack me, there will be no further discussion. Please, remove the offensive text first.-- 71.191.30.202 ( talk) 19:22, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
- Comment- THe 71 is a dynamic IP and is editing under multiple addresses, imo in the interest of openness and for editors to see any pattern for the editor should be encouraged to edit from an account. Off2riorob ( talk) 19:52, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Just saw this. Will post more later. I have talk page archives to go through to properly provide evidence, which will take several hours. And I have somewhere to go for the next few hours. In the time being, could someone perhaps explain to me in what way my words have crossed the line? The IP has been calling for my words to be deleted because he finds some issue with them, referring to specific wikipedia terminology as "street language". I wonder what is the issue? I was very careful until a few days ago when I first decided to just flat out call it vandalism. So again, I'll be back later with a lengthy post, but for now, can someone specify where the line was crossed word-wise? Farsight001 ( talk) 21:01, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
- Don't worry about it, for the moment. Sans 71 vs. yourself, are there any issues that need dealing with?
Xavexgoem (
talk) 21:36, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
- The other issue for me was the continual reversion of content on the talk/article page. Sometimes the reversions got a little over the top, but I see you've covered that
here. --
Eraserhead1 <
talk> 23:15, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
- Alright, sans 71 for the moment, what issues need resolving?
Xavexgoem (
talk)
- Oh. Well in that case, I don't see much of another problem. An article like this is always going to be a bit tense, so there's some issues, but nothing we can't handle. Farsight001 ( talk) 20:55, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- Alright, sans 71 for the moment, what issues need resolving?
Xavexgoem (
talk)
- The other issue for me was the continual reversion of content on the talk/article page. Sometimes the reversions got a little over the top, but I see you've covered that
here. --
Eraserhead1 <
talk> 23:15, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Maybe its worth reducing the full-protection to semi-protection and seeing if the problems go away. -- Eraserhead1 < talk> 20:57, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- Will do. However, if 71 has legitimate problems (and no-one thinks they have illegitimate problems, after all), I'd like to have them heard by me. Hopefully he won't mind my blocking him. Xavexgoem ( talk) 22:10, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
I just noticed that I had forgotten to answer the other question, which was in what way I felt 71 was violating BLP policy. And while it is probably mostly moot at this point, just in case you still wanted it - The answer to that is, for the most part, his insistence that yet to be closed cases be talked about as though a conviction already happened as well as the claim that the pope knowingly covered up abuse when all sources were thus far still speculative. The largest problem I saw in this regard was the insistence that the word "alleged" be removed from issues that really were still alleged, making them appear as concluded instead of still open. Farsight001 ( talk) 01:01, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- Alright, note to 71: BLP problems aside, that's a sourcing problem. There are really only two kinds of disputes, aside from conduct: WP:V and WP:NPOV. Usually the disputes are linked, but in this case it's a problem with V. Add to that BLP, and you have a major problem. Xavexgoem ( talk) 06:24, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Administrative notes
71 blocked for 1 week, per WP:TENDENTIOUS and WP:EDITWAR, particularly on a talk page. He can still create an account. Xavexgoem ( talk) 21:31, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Discussion
Having semi-prot'd the article, I see no reason to keep this mediation going. If 71 continues to be a problem -- and of this, I still have my doubts -- please inform me. In the meantime, I'm closing. Xavexgoem ( talk) 18:13, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- Support, the problem was simply removed, best regards. Off2riorob ( talk) 20:55, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
| Wikipedia Mediation Cabal | |
|---|---|
|
| |
| Article | Catholic sex abuse cases |
| Status | Closed |
| Request date | 17:50, 25 May 2010 (UTC) |
| Requesting party | -- Eraserhead1 < talk> |
| Mediator(s) | Xavexgoem ( talk) |
| Comment | Closed? |
Request details
Where is the dispute?
Who is involved?
In alphabetical order:
- User:71.163.237.120
- User:Afterwriting
- User:Eraserhead1
- User:Farsight001
- User:Haldraper
- User:Joo
- User:Sturunner
What is the dispute?
The dispute is over whether the content of the article is pro or anti-catholic and how to move forward and improve the article and keep it neutral.
What would you like to change about this?
I'd like to stop the edit warring and constant reversions which occur a lot of the time when people make edits to both the talk page and the article itself.
How do you think we can help?
It would be good if you can help to keep the discussion on topic and to make sure that everyone is behaving civilly towards those with differing opinions on the talk page. When this spills over into the article it would be nice if this didn't descend into edit warring over which WP:WRONGVERSION is in the article at the time.
Unfortunately I don't feel we can solve this issue on our own.
Mediator notes / Potpourri
I'll take this case. Please sign here for acceptance:
- Xavexgoem ( talk)
- I accept mediation. Thanks -- Sturunner ( talk) 00:52, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- I must disagree to the nature of the problem. I believe 100% that the issue ultimately stems from the IP hopper soapboxing on the talk page and repeatedly adding BLP violations to the article. Any helpful suggestion results in a nasty response from said IP. Other than that... Farsight001 ( talk) 07:41, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
- I accept the mediation. -- Eraserhead1 < talk> 09:39, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
- My signature here is conditional. User Farsight001 must unconditionally drop street language used against me and false accusations. His/her interpretation of the Wikipedia policy is false, therefore not matter of any discussion.-- 71.191.30.202 ( talk) 14:48, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
- I agree to be involved in the mediation but I disagree that the "dispute" or "conflict" is essentially over whether the article is pro or anti Roman Catholic. I agree with Farsight001 above that the only real problem is the persistent disruptive soapboxing and BLP violations of an anonymous editor using various IP addresses. Afterwriting ( talk) 14:47, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Alright, before we proceed: I will be looking over the talk page archives on patterns of discussion. In the meantime, just for now, I request that both Farsight and 71.191.x.x abstain from focusing on each other. I would like to hear Farsight tell me what the BLP problem is, regardless of who's making them; and I would like to hear 71.191 interpretation of whichever policies, regardless of who's interpreting them falsely. I hope this is agreeable. Again, only for the time being. Xavexgoem ( talk) 16:40, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Carry on!
- Comment. Nothing is all right as long as I see the above 'explanation': I believe 100% that the issue ultimately stems from the IP hopper soapboxing on the talk page and repeatedly adding BLP violations to the article. Any helpful suggestion results in a nasty response from said IP. This text must be ultimately removed from this page.--
71.191.30.202 (
talk) 17:38, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
- As far as I can see Xavexgoem has made that clear by saying that Farsight shouldn't focus on individual users in the future. -- Eraserhead1 < talk> 17:48, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
As bad as any dispute can be... and I've seen bad disputes... there's usually an element of "Z sees X saying something bad, and now everything X says is bad", which gives X an opportunity to hate on Z (downward spiral!). It's reductionist, I know. But the important thing for any mediation is content, not contributors. If I see personal attacks, or things readably perceived as personal attacks, I will remove them or issue a Firmly Worded And Vaguely Threatening Statement. If any user is such an issue, I suggest you take him or her to AN/I to get the broader community's opinion. Ultimately, the expectation is that everyone act as editors, not as pro- or anti-'s, etc. I don't want to hear accusations of how so-and-so isn't acting like an editor without solid evidence.
Again, I ask: Farsight, what is the BLP problem, and how is 71 abusing it? 71: how is Farsight misinterpreting the consensus of policy? Both of you can be as short or long as you want in your reply, but brevity is also the soul of a quickly ending dispute. Xavexgoem ( talk) 18:35, 30 May 2010 (UTC) Also: I can contain soapboxing, which is a regular occurrence in any dispute, so please don't worry about that for now; I also have the talkpage watched. And I'm thinking of moving the mediation over there anyway
- Comment As far as I see street language used here to attack me, there will be no further discussion. Please, remove the offensive text first.-- 71.191.30.202 ( talk) 19:22, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
- Comment- THe 71 is a dynamic IP and is editing under multiple addresses, imo in the interest of openness and for editors to see any pattern for the editor should be encouraged to edit from an account. Off2riorob ( talk) 19:52, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Just saw this. Will post more later. I have talk page archives to go through to properly provide evidence, which will take several hours. And I have somewhere to go for the next few hours. In the time being, could someone perhaps explain to me in what way my words have crossed the line? The IP has been calling for my words to be deleted because he finds some issue with them, referring to specific wikipedia terminology as "street language". I wonder what is the issue? I was very careful until a few days ago when I first decided to just flat out call it vandalism. So again, I'll be back later with a lengthy post, but for now, can someone specify where the line was crossed word-wise? Farsight001 ( talk) 21:01, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
- Don't worry about it, for the moment. Sans 71 vs. yourself, are there any issues that need dealing with?
Xavexgoem (
talk) 21:36, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
- The other issue for me was the continual reversion of content on the talk/article page. Sometimes the reversions got a little over the top, but I see you've covered that
here. --
Eraserhead1 <
talk> 23:15, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
- Alright, sans 71 for the moment, what issues need resolving?
Xavexgoem (
talk)
- Oh. Well in that case, I don't see much of another problem. An article like this is always going to be a bit tense, so there's some issues, but nothing we can't handle. Farsight001 ( talk) 20:55, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- Alright, sans 71 for the moment, what issues need resolving?
Xavexgoem (
talk)
- The other issue for me was the continual reversion of content on the talk/article page. Sometimes the reversions got a little over the top, but I see you've covered that
here. --
Eraserhead1 <
talk> 23:15, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Maybe its worth reducing the full-protection to semi-protection and seeing if the problems go away. -- Eraserhead1 < talk> 20:57, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- Will do. However, if 71 has legitimate problems (and no-one thinks they have illegitimate problems, after all), I'd like to have them heard by me. Hopefully he won't mind my blocking him. Xavexgoem ( talk) 22:10, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
I just noticed that I had forgotten to answer the other question, which was in what way I felt 71 was violating BLP policy. And while it is probably mostly moot at this point, just in case you still wanted it - The answer to that is, for the most part, his insistence that yet to be closed cases be talked about as though a conviction already happened as well as the claim that the pope knowingly covered up abuse when all sources were thus far still speculative. The largest problem I saw in this regard was the insistence that the word "alleged" be removed from issues that really were still alleged, making them appear as concluded instead of still open. Farsight001 ( talk) 01:01, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- Alright, note to 71: BLP problems aside, that's a sourcing problem. There are really only two kinds of disputes, aside from conduct: WP:V and WP:NPOV. Usually the disputes are linked, but in this case it's a problem with V. Add to that BLP, and you have a major problem. Xavexgoem ( talk) 06:24, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Administrative notes
71 blocked for 1 week, per WP:TENDENTIOUS and WP:EDITWAR, particularly on a talk page. He can still create an account. Xavexgoem ( talk) 21:31, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Discussion
Having semi-prot'd the article, I see no reason to keep this mediation going. If 71 continues to be a problem -- and of this, I still have my doubts -- please inform me. In the meantime, I'm closing. Xavexgoem ( talk) 18:13, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- Support, the problem was simply removed, best regards. Off2riorob ( talk) 20:55, 1 June 2010 (UTC)