Participation is limited to two person disputes with no sockpuppet allegations. Because participants may impose remedies similar to
arbitration on themselves through this program, editors who participate here should understand the basics of arbitration or be prepared to educate themselves.
The following editors have volunteered to train as community mediators:
Program participants who have a dispute should be aware that trainees will observe mediation and discuss it confidentially with the mediator through e-mail. This discussion is more likely to focus on the technical aspects of running a community enforced mediation than on the personalities involved in a particular case.
To request community enforced mediation, enter the names of the two parties. Both parties must sign to demonstrate their willingness to participate.
Enter new requests at the end of this section using following template.
{{ subst:CEM|user1=|user2=|summary=}}
WaverlyR ( talk · contribs) and Burks88 ( talk · contribs)
- WaverlyR, sign here: WaverlyR
- Burks88, Sign here: Burks88
Discussion
About The Best American Poetry series. We continue to disagree about the editing of this article. We have been through a RFC and 3O (and 4O) and those offering 3O also disagree over NPOV, NOR, and sources and citations. There is also problem with the tone of the talk with one editor speculating (on the RFC and user talk pages) about the identity of the other and characterizing the others motives and behavior.Given the level of animus, there is a need for help from a disinterested party.
- I'm not directly a party to this, but a bit of background might be useful. The contributions history of both parties show they're essentially single-purpose accounts, one of which, WaverlyR, very ably and very forcefully defends
David Lehman, the editor of
The Best American Poetry series (BAP), and the other, Burk88, about as ably and about as forcefully points out certain conflicts of interest on the part of Lehman, the series editor, and the poets he's invited as guest editors of the series. Both WaverlyR and Burk88 appear to be extremely well informed about the series. The series is a very big fish (influential, reputation-making) in the relatively small pond of American poetry. Shortly after I created articles about the series and individual years in it, I found out about the allegations of cronyism against the editors, and I included some of that information. WaverlyR then joined Wikipedia and deleted those allegations, and I came to agree with her that the sourcing on them was not good enough (they all came from blogs and message boards such as sethabramson.com and foetry.com). Burks88 has since joined Wikipedia and has been essentially battling over the same ground with WaverlyR, but he's better informed about contemporary poetry than I am and he's come up with some better sources and some indisputable facts. (It is not disputable, for one thing, that series editors, including Lehman, have been selecting their wives as authors of some of the "best American poetry" of the year.) Burk88 has also been adding information about the inclusion of poems in the series by people who were thanked by Lehman in the acknowledgements sections of other books in the series. The validity of this information is still in question, and WaverlyR, as ever, disputes it. To the extent that this is a content dispute, I suppose I'm now forced to take it to
WP:Biographies of living people because the issues are a little knotty. Editors at this forum might find it useful to remind both parties about how to get along. Both parties are intelligent, kowledgeable, articulate and have each improved the BAP series article, but their contentiousness has taken up my time and that of other editors, and they haven't exhibited much of an interest in Wikipedia beyond this dispute.
Noroton 18:32, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
- N, that's not an unfair account of things; I guess I'd just note that I came on Wikipedia and worked on articles on Franz Wright and the Neal Stephenson trilogy The Baroque Cycle, and then got side-tracked on this nonsense. WaverlyR has never edited any article on Wikipedia unrelated to the Best American Poetry series--unless you consider editing an entry on the Kellett Fellowship to include the name of the series editor of Best American Poetry an unrelated edit. I also think the history shows that my edits have often been style-related and organizational, and not merely an attempt to insert certain types of information into the entry--for instance, I was the first to agree with WaverlyR that certain allegations were not properly cited, or accurate (specifically, the lack of diversity in the series and the lack of experimental poetry) and remove them. When asked to improve cites I've done so, rather than inserting material obviously unsuited to the article (as I mentioned above, citing the series editor and his wife as valid "critics" of the series). I'm also not just some mud-slinger: I own every single volume of the series ever released (since 1988), and in fact WaverlyR has disputed the implications of some of the data taken from the source material but has never suggested (nor could s/he) that I've falsified even a single bit of information. I've used the source material as my guide, always. I can honestly say that while I feel upset toward this other editor because of his/her militancy on "selling" the series to the public, the most troubling thing is his/her unwillingness to engage on why some of these edits were made. Why are David Lehman and his wife "critics" of the series? Why was a section listing 300 contributing journals never seen as necessary by this editor (for weeks and weeks) until 24 hours after the "critical reception of the series" section was updated to include verifiably-source "negative" criticism of the series? And why did this massive section suddenly warrant being placed ahead of a section ("Critical reception of the series") which has been in place just about since this entry was started on WP? Burks88 19:53, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
The speculation on identity was immediately removed (by me) when another editor pointed out it was inappropriate, which I had not realized, and said so. The mistake was apologized for and has not been repeated since then, and so is (I would have thought) irrelevant to where we are now with this situation, which I agree is intolerable. WaverlyR has consistently edited this entry to remove all content s/he perceives as unfavorable to the subject, replacing it with material which clearly violates neutrality. By way of example, WaverlyR once inserted a glowing review of the subject (a series of anthologies) by its editor into the "Critical reception of the series" section of the article. S/he just today attempted to insert a glowing review of the subject by the wife of the series editor into that same section. Other tactics have included introducing new, cumbersome, and unnecessary sections to the article (like a section listing all 300 literary journals which have contributed poems to the series since 1988) in an effort to push further down the page the "Critical reception of the series" section--which contains content WaverlyR has consistently tried to edit out despite more than one editor disagreeing with her. There's more, of course, but I'll stop there--to the extent I've questioned, and do question, the motives of WaverlyR, it is because I have consistently tried to open a dialogue with this person to understand their perspective and they have consistently refused to converse. When someone refuses to engage other editors and yet is making wholesale changes to an article other editors (more than one) disagree with (including repeatedly simply undoing all their changes), it's a natural reaction, I think, to wonder what the heck is going on. Burks88 18:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
A quick review of the Best American Poetry series history page would show that my edits have been to remove information not properly sourced or cited and those relying on OR. Those giving comment or a 30 have pointed out more of the same. I have not attempted to excise negative comments that are properly cited. And I have added material to give balance. Note the number of times that the 30s have prefaced their comments with "I have to agree with WaverlyR" or some variation thereof. Finally, the tone of Burks88 comments, on the article's talk page, on mine, and in his or her edit summaries has been disrespectful at best. While Noroton has done a lot to improve the discussion he or she should avoid assuming my gender, and know that I have not disputed the information about including those thanked by Lehman; I have made the list complete by adding names Burks88 left out and clarified the language to reflect what is in the volumes. I have in mind the interested but uninformed reader and what he or she might infer about BAP after reading the article. I readily admit to being partisan here: the article should be balanced and give verifiable information. WaverlyR 18:57, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
As I see it, the questions up for mediation are as follows: (1) What is the proper place in the article for the information about guest editors picking poems by their spouses or David Lehman's? (2) What is the proper place for the list of journals?(3) Do the items in the "critical reception" section meet WP standards? (3) Have the editors violated rules of decorum in their "talk" comments and edit summaries and if so how should this be addressed? WaverlyR 20:05, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Mediator acceptance
I'll take this. Hope it works out. Durova Charge! 18:02, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Participation is limited to two person disputes with no sockpuppet allegations. Because participants may impose remedies similar to
arbitration on themselves through this program, editors who participate here should understand the basics of arbitration or be prepared to educate themselves.
The following editors have volunteered to train as community mediators:
Program participants who have a dispute should be aware that trainees will observe mediation and discuss it confidentially with the mediator through e-mail. This discussion is more likely to focus on the technical aspects of running a community enforced mediation than on the personalities involved in a particular case.
To request community enforced mediation, enter the names of the two parties. Both parties must sign to demonstrate their willingness to participate.
Enter new requests at the end of this section using following template.
{{ subst:CEM|user1=|user2=|summary=}}
WaverlyR ( talk · contribs) and Burks88 ( talk · contribs)
- WaverlyR, sign here: WaverlyR
- Burks88, Sign here: Burks88
Discussion
About The Best American Poetry series. We continue to disagree about the editing of this article. We have been through a RFC and 3O (and 4O) and those offering 3O also disagree over NPOV, NOR, and sources and citations. There is also problem with the tone of the talk with one editor speculating (on the RFC and user talk pages) about the identity of the other and characterizing the others motives and behavior.Given the level of animus, there is a need for help from a disinterested party.
- I'm not directly a party to this, but a bit of background might be useful. The contributions history of both parties show they're essentially single-purpose accounts, one of which, WaverlyR, very ably and very forcefully defends
David Lehman, the editor of
The Best American Poetry series (BAP), and the other, Burk88, about as ably and about as forcefully points out certain conflicts of interest on the part of Lehman, the series editor, and the poets he's invited as guest editors of the series. Both WaverlyR and Burk88 appear to be extremely well informed about the series. The series is a very big fish (influential, reputation-making) in the relatively small pond of American poetry. Shortly after I created articles about the series and individual years in it, I found out about the allegations of cronyism against the editors, and I included some of that information. WaverlyR then joined Wikipedia and deleted those allegations, and I came to agree with her that the sourcing on them was not good enough (they all came from blogs and message boards such as sethabramson.com and foetry.com). Burks88 has since joined Wikipedia and has been essentially battling over the same ground with WaverlyR, but he's better informed about contemporary poetry than I am and he's come up with some better sources and some indisputable facts. (It is not disputable, for one thing, that series editors, including Lehman, have been selecting their wives as authors of some of the "best American poetry" of the year.) Burk88 has also been adding information about the inclusion of poems in the series by people who were thanked by Lehman in the acknowledgements sections of other books in the series. The validity of this information is still in question, and WaverlyR, as ever, disputes it. To the extent that this is a content dispute, I suppose I'm now forced to take it to
WP:Biographies of living people because the issues are a little knotty. Editors at this forum might find it useful to remind both parties about how to get along. Both parties are intelligent, kowledgeable, articulate and have each improved the BAP series article, but their contentiousness has taken up my time and that of other editors, and they haven't exhibited much of an interest in Wikipedia beyond this dispute.
Noroton 18:32, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
- N, that's not an unfair account of things; I guess I'd just note that I came on Wikipedia and worked on articles on Franz Wright and the Neal Stephenson trilogy The Baroque Cycle, and then got side-tracked on this nonsense. WaverlyR has never edited any article on Wikipedia unrelated to the Best American Poetry series--unless you consider editing an entry on the Kellett Fellowship to include the name of the series editor of Best American Poetry an unrelated edit. I also think the history shows that my edits have often been style-related and organizational, and not merely an attempt to insert certain types of information into the entry--for instance, I was the first to agree with WaverlyR that certain allegations were not properly cited, or accurate (specifically, the lack of diversity in the series and the lack of experimental poetry) and remove them. When asked to improve cites I've done so, rather than inserting material obviously unsuited to the article (as I mentioned above, citing the series editor and his wife as valid "critics" of the series). I'm also not just some mud-slinger: I own every single volume of the series ever released (since 1988), and in fact WaverlyR has disputed the implications of some of the data taken from the source material but has never suggested (nor could s/he) that I've falsified even a single bit of information. I've used the source material as my guide, always. I can honestly say that while I feel upset toward this other editor because of his/her militancy on "selling" the series to the public, the most troubling thing is his/her unwillingness to engage on why some of these edits were made. Why are David Lehman and his wife "critics" of the series? Why was a section listing 300 contributing journals never seen as necessary by this editor (for weeks and weeks) until 24 hours after the "critical reception of the series" section was updated to include verifiably-source "negative" criticism of the series? And why did this massive section suddenly warrant being placed ahead of a section ("Critical reception of the series") which has been in place just about since this entry was started on WP? Burks88 19:53, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
The speculation on identity was immediately removed (by me) when another editor pointed out it was inappropriate, which I had not realized, and said so. The mistake was apologized for and has not been repeated since then, and so is (I would have thought) irrelevant to where we are now with this situation, which I agree is intolerable. WaverlyR has consistently edited this entry to remove all content s/he perceives as unfavorable to the subject, replacing it with material which clearly violates neutrality. By way of example, WaverlyR once inserted a glowing review of the subject (a series of anthologies) by its editor into the "Critical reception of the series" section of the article. S/he just today attempted to insert a glowing review of the subject by the wife of the series editor into that same section. Other tactics have included introducing new, cumbersome, and unnecessary sections to the article (like a section listing all 300 literary journals which have contributed poems to the series since 1988) in an effort to push further down the page the "Critical reception of the series" section--which contains content WaverlyR has consistently tried to edit out despite more than one editor disagreeing with her. There's more, of course, but I'll stop there--to the extent I've questioned, and do question, the motives of WaverlyR, it is because I have consistently tried to open a dialogue with this person to understand their perspective and they have consistently refused to converse. When someone refuses to engage other editors and yet is making wholesale changes to an article other editors (more than one) disagree with (including repeatedly simply undoing all their changes), it's a natural reaction, I think, to wonder what the heck is going on. Burks88 18:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
A quick review of the Best American Poetry series history page would show that my edits have been to remove information not properly sourced or cited and those relying on OR. Those giving comment or a 30 have pointed out more of the same. I have not attempted to excise negative comments that are properly cited. And I have added material to give balance. Note the number of times that the 30s have prefaced their comments with "I have to agree with WaverlyR" or some variation thereof. Finally, the tone of Burks88 comments, on the article's talk page, on mine, and in his or her edit summaries has been disrespectful at best. While Noroton has done a lot to improve the discussion he or she should avoid assuming my gender, and know that I have not disputed the information about including those thanked by Lehman; I have made the list complete by adding names Burks88 left out and clarified the language to reflect what is in the volumes. I have in mind the interested but uninformed reader and what he or she might infer about BAP after reading the article. I readily admit to being partisan here: the article should be balanced and give verifiable information. WaverlyR 18:57, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
As I see it, the questions up for mediation are as follows: (1) What is the proper place in the article for the information about guest editors picking poems by their spouses or David Lehman's? (2) What is the proper place for the list of journals?(3) Do the items in the "critical reception" section meet WP standards? (3) Have the editors violated rules of decorum in their "talk" comments and edit summaries and if so how should this be addressed? WaverlyR 20:05, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Mediator acceptance
I'll take this. Hope it works out. Durova Charge! 18:02, 18 October 2007 (UTC)