Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-10-05 Pravknight/FeloniousMonk
| Wikipedia Mediation Cabal | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Article | Paul Weyrich |
| Status | closed |
| Request date | Unknown |
| Requesting party | Pravknight |
| Parties involved | User:FeloniousMonk & others. |
| Comment | Refer to AMA |
[[Category:Wikipedia Medcab closed cases|Paul Weyrich]][[Category:Wikipedia medcab maintenance|Paul Weyrich]]
Mediation Case: FeloniousMonk
[edit]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
[edit]- Request made by: --05:33, 5 October 2006 (UTC)Pravknight
- Where is the issue taking place?
- Paul Weyrich and the WP:CON,WP:V, WP:NPOV talk pages.
- Who's involved?
- User:FeloniousMonk
- User:KillerChihauhua
- User:Jim68sch
- User:Jossi
- What's going on?
- I began by objecting to what I saw as POV edits on the Paul Weyrich page accusing him of having connections to Dominionism, an ideology that believes in replacing the U.S. Constitution with Old Testament law.
- I know this is false because Mr. Weyrich was my parish deacon at my Melkite parish for over four years, and I told FeloniousMonk that I knew Mr. Weyrich and that his source was inaccurate. I checked the underlying source, and it didn't say how he was affiliated, but it only relied upon an ad hominem and a strawman argument.
- Before I knew it 4 or 5 editors and admins who routinely work alongside
FeloniousMonk (I know this because I Googled their names and the same names kept coming up alongside his as members of a known "Atheist cabal") began accusing me of violating WP:AUTO because I know the individual in question. He also accused me of violating every other rule in the book such as WP:NPOV,WP:V because I removed his language that I found partisan in tone. I put warning labels on the sections I felt needed reader discretion, and he accused me of using them improperly when no guidelines were provided to give new editors guidelines of when to post them and when not to.
- There were times I lost my cool, but I felt frustated by his interpretations of the rules. I read all of the rules he accused me of violating, and I couldn't find any justification for his interpretations from what I could read.
- They all refused to meet me half-way and instead accused me of biased editing or "whitewashing" whenever I edited the article to provide what I felt was proper NPOV language. I also flagged FeloniousMonk for claiming that Mr. Weyrich intended to exempt Wiccans from the First Amendment's "Free Exercise Clause" when ample caselaw shows that the military can regulate religious expression. I changed it to attribute the
sentiment to a group that shared his POV, but her reverted it and added it to a RfC that he setup,
- What would you like to change about that?
- I'm a reporter/copy editor by training for a newspaper, so that's the mindset I bring to Wikipedia. I just want the partisan tone of FeloniousMonk's additions to the Paul Weyrich article removed and the tone of his other Wikipedia contributions examined. I feel he demonstrates a strong, uncompromising partisanship that I think makes Wikipedia look biased against religious people. As someone who takes his faith very seriously, I find some of his work hateful and offensive.
- I just want more neutral language, that's all, such that he talks about the issue but doesn't become immediately involved.
- Would you prefer we work discreetly? If so, how can we reach you?
I feel unfairly, to try to railroad me.
I can be contacted at User:Pravknight
Mediator response
[edit]Please note I am not taking this case. My preliminary evaluation is that it is not likely amenable to informal mediation, however I am taking a wait and see attitude for now. --Ideogram 07:00, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
- Yup, I can't either, because of my involvement at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Pravknight. That said, I'm not convinced this is a MedCab case. I would suggest this is more related to advocacy and the AMA. Addhoc 13:38, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Compromise offers
[edit]This section is for listing and discussing compromise offers.
Discussion
[edit]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.
- Requesting AMA review to determine proper location for the case. Please wait for an Advocate to suggest a course of action. ~Kylu (u|t) 22:20, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
- As an advocate with the AMA, I agree that this is a case for us rather than the Mediation Cabal. I will contact Pravknight to inform them of this and assign an advocate as soon as possible. Unfortunately I do not have the time to take the case myself but will add it to AMA Requests for Assistance page. It would be best if this page was retained as I will link to it for the advocate who takes the case to read through. Thanks to all involved. Wikiwoohoo talk 18:21, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
- Hi Wikiwoohoo and thanks for your help. I'll close the MedCab case, however the page will otherwise be unaffected. Thanks again, Addhoc 18:39, 11 October 2006 (UTC)