Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-06-14 H

Wikipedia Mediation Cabal
Wikipedia Mediation Cabal
Article	Black Death, Medieval cuisine, Subtlety, Entremet
Status	closed
Request date	Unknown
Requesting party	Unknown
Parties involved	Peter Isotalo, H
Mediator(s)	Cool Bluetalk to me
Comment	H left permanently, so there's nothing left to be done. H leaving doesn't have anything to do with this case.

[[Category:Wikipedia Medcab closed cases|Black Death, Medieval cuisine, Subtlety, Entremet]][[Category:Wikipedia medcab maintenance|Black Death, Medieval cuisine, Subtlety, Entremet]]

Request Information[edit]

There has been a conflict between Peter Isotalo and H (formerly known as HighInBC) about several articles since late March. The common denominator has been a feeling from Peter that H is placing too much burden of proof on him while H believes that Peter is being rude, defensive and territorial about certain articles.

Who are the involved parties?[edit]

Primarily H and Peter Isotalo. Other users have been involved in the disputes, but not in more than one particular dispute at a time. H and Peter are the only ones who have clashed consistently.

What are the involved articles?[edit]

Black Death, Medieval cuisine, Subtlety and Entremet. All articles on medieval history. More specifically:

Talk:Medieval cuisine#Removing fact-tags – Talk:Medieval cuisine#class imitation, nobility exposed to more foriegn food – Talk:Medieval cuisine#This is a featured article???
Talk:Black Death (most of the posts between March 27 and 29 April)
Talk:Subtlety

What's going on?[edit]

I am constantly being accused of usurping ownership of certain articles because I ask of users questioning (verifiable) facts to motivate themselves. I feel that H is throwing himself into these disputes with an assumption of bad faith against me. I believe H is aggravating rather than settling disputes and making unfair assessments of my behavior and the motives for my actions. There were some fairly drawn-out disputes over citation frequency at Talk:Black Death and Talk:Medieval cuisine which at times rather pointless, but when it came to Talk:Subtlety, it was an actual content dispute which I felt was handled very poorly. Here I was confronted Athaenara, who repeatedly reverted my own revisions of my own material based on my own research. In effect, he demanded that I had to explain why I corrected myself without actually injecting new facts or a different perspective into the discussion. When I explained that I had revised the content because I had gained new knowledge I was told that I was being hostile, defensive and instead of having a discussion about cuisine history, I got a lot of replies consisting of non sequitur policy citations, accusations of poor behavior and even claims that I was POV:ing the article. H showed up and attempted to act like a mediator, but instead wound up participating in the revert war and telling me, but not any of the other disputants, that I had to explain myself to an extent that was disproportional to the doubts aired by other users.

Peter ^Isotalo 11:56, 14 June 2007 (UTC) revised 06:53, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What would you like to change about that?[edit]

I don't have a problem with comments on my own work or content that I support myself (I could hardly have brought medieval cuisine to FA status if I was generally uncooperative), but I do have a problem with users that keep repeating the same ill-advised attempts at resolving disputes over and over again. I believe H should try to adopt a stance of genuine neutrality or to make an honest attempt of trying to gain insight and adding opinions based on more than just personal conviction and policy citation. If none of this is forthcoming, I really think it's best that he should leave these types of conflicts to other users to resolve.

Peter ^Isotalo 11:56, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What concretely and specifically would you like to see based on your above comments? ~~Is it possible to solve this on a case-by-case basis?~~ Cool Blue^{talk to me} 17:37, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moving forward[edit]

H, would you like to make an attempt at mediation here, or would you not? Cool Blue^{talk to me} 01:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would love it if this was settled through mediation. ^(H) 01:38, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very well. I'll see what I can do. Cool Blue^{talk to me} 01:40, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would help me if it was clarified what I am supposed to respond to. As I see it, the main complaint against me is my asking Peter to follow certain policies. Is it that I have asked inappropriately? Or is it that Peter does not think he has committed the acts I have asked him not to? ^(H) 01:42, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pete, if you would provide with some specific diffs and a briefer statement, that's more to the point, with only specific incidents listed, that'd be better. I'll list this in the section below, and I'll drop him a note. Cool Blue^{talk to me} 01:44, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement from H[edit]

Peter is a very good contributor that has improved Wikipedia very much. The only issue I have with him is that I cannot disagree with him without him getting upset at me. Disagreements over things like the placement of citations, or if a discussion has gone one long enough, tend to immediately bring out resentment. I believe reasonable people can disagree without hard feelings.

I have criticized Peter for violations of the WP:OWN and WP:CIVILITY policies. I have diffs available demonstrating the specific sources of my criticisms, if they are needed to move forward this mediation I can provide them. I feel I have already dealt with these issues and hope they will not repeat.

I do not think I have acted inappropriately, and I have trouble responding to Peter's criticism due to the vague nature of them. ^(H) 01:52, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, H. I guess we'll just have to wait for a response from Pete. I've created the "Incident summary" especially for Pete, because the more supporting diffs, the better, because the terms were a bit vague and a bit hard for me to follow. Cool Blue^{talk to me} 01:57, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Incident summary[edit]

Pete, to start this mediation, could you please give us some specific diffs, what you believe H should have done, and why you disagree with H's actions. H, if you'd reply under each of his incidents that'd be great, so we can start to pull both sides together. Cool Blue^{talk to me} 01:49, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Questions[edit]

To get this mediation to be successful, I'm adding some of the following questions. Please answer by your name, if your name is by the question.

1. Why do you dislike the "sprinkling of random footnotes"? Keep in mind that we're running an encyclopedia that anyone can edit, including people such as Willy on Wheels, etc.

P: Citation standards are controversial and policy is intentionally vague. The most frustrating aspect of conflicts when it comes to fact-tagging is that the most aggressive taggings are frequently done by users who feel insulted by being asked to ask first and tag later. There also seems to be tendency to consider any footnote that covers more than one paragraph as being too general or "distant" from the facts they're supposed to cover. I am not immune to demands from others about bolstering citation, but I simply don't respond well to demands that are based almost entirely on policy interpretation and meta-discussions about who should be expected to know what rather than discussions about the actual article topic at hand. As per this discussion, I think demands for citing too basic statements simply "makes Wiki look stupid". Peter ^Isotalo 10:22, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2. Would both of you please comment on the diffs presented at User:H/notes?

P: The page has been cleared. Which diffs am I expected to comment, if at all? Peter ^Isotalo 10:22, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
H: Most of those notes were collected in response to this mediation in attempt to clarify my motivations in giving warnings to Peter. ^(H) 00:04, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3. H, Pete has already commented on what he would like to see happen with the situation. H, what would you like to see happen? Pete, do you agree with H's proposal?

H: As a result of this mediation, I mostly expect a sanity check on my own behavior, and perhaps the same for Peter. ^(H) 00:04, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
P: Sanity check is probably a good summary. I would preferably also like to a see a bit more humility and less paranoia from users who comment on topics they haven't actually researched. Peter ^Isotalo 10:22, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possible compromise[edit]

Alright, the ?s are unanswered, but as far as I'm concerned, I've found a few things:

One - It looks like Pete has been incivil on more than one occasions.
Two - These "run-ins" with Pete don't appear to be coincidental.
Three - Disputes over these types of matters should generally be found at the article's talkpage. Therefore I propose that,

~~Any article talkpage discussions that H happens to come across should be entirely coincidental. H should not be looking over Special:Contributions/Peter Isotalo.~~

When an admin gives warnings to a user regarding behavior and policy, it is appropriate and expected that the admin watch the contributions of that user to see if the situation has improved or is progressing. While I have no intention of stalking, or picking on Peter, I do not think it is reasonable for me to agree to stop observing his behavior and respond appropriately. ^(H) 00:02, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't think of that. Cool Blue^{talk to me} 00:59, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Both parties should remain civil at all times. Profanity and attacks aren't helping us at all.

Agreed. ^(H) 00:02, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any comments on article talkpages that either parties make should be constructive, not defensive. This means that any comments H or Pete make on article talkpages should not cite random policy jargon, but help to resolve the situation, not defend the user's position. Think of this as self-mediation.

Agreed, however I do not believe this is what I have done. I have not seen an example of me calling out a policy just for the hell of it. ^(H) 00:02, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm not accusing anyone of anything, but if no one has done this, than we shouldn't have a problem. This is to prevent disruption, and we should practice these everyday, regardless of mediation. Cool Blue^{talk to me} 02:03, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, that is why I started with "Agreed". I did not think you were accusing me, but I was unsure how it was related. I see now that it was a general measure and not something brought about by any particular issue. ^(H) 02:10, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Both parties will adhere to WP:COOL at all times.

Ohhhhh ya. ^(H) 00:02, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If any disputes do happen to arise, they will not be continued at article talkpages, but rather follow the dispute resolution steps listed at WP:DR.

Agreed, article talk pages disputes should stick directly to the subject at hand. Any discussion about each other should be on our respective talk pages. ^(H) 00:02, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Both parties will use their own personal integrity to follow these suggestions.

Agreed. ^(H) 00:02, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The current disputes will be settled at the article talkpages with consensus from other editors.

I will respect consensus even when I do not agree. I expect the same of Peter. ^(H) 00:02, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neither parties will accuse the other party of violations of policies if a dispute occurs. If an actual violation does occur, it should be ~~posted to the appropriate forum~~ resolved through the dispute resolution steps.

I have not given up hope in handling these issues through discussion, which requires stating the violation. I would rather not resort to reporting Peter when simply speaking with him should be productive. I do however agree that if Peter begins to become upset or hostile towards my discussion that I will a broader audience. ^(H) 00:02, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean to suggest that, but I've worded it better to make it more clear. Cool Blue^{talk to me} 01:01, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with new wording of the second sentence without qualification. Though I still see it being productive to point out violations when a person seems unaware of them. I will seek a wider audience should I feel any action need to be taken or if one on one is becoming unproductive. ^(H) 01:07, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Optional - H will voluntarily ~~delete~~ blank his User:H/notes page. These do not need to be stored. Any situations that arise should will follow the steps listed at WP:DR.

I can blank it, but I see no point in deleting it. It is a notes page and that is just what it is. It is where I keep tabs on long term issues. ^(H) 00:02, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed. Cool Blue^{talk to me} 00:59, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please list Accept or Decline next to your signature below, and if you decline, list your reason for doing so. By accepting the proposal, you also agree with a motion to close.Cool Blue ^{talk to me} 18:56, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mediator response[edit]

I'll see if H wants to participate, then I'll go from there if he accepts. Cool Blue^{talk to me} 01:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see if Athaenara will particpate. It's not compulsory for the mediation, but it will certainly help. Cool Blue^{talk to me} 01:36, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some questions above. Cool Blue^{talk to me} 17:47, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dunno if this the proper place to point it out, but things are a bit hectic irl for me right now. It might take a few days or maybe a week before I can respond in full and show some diffs. So far, though, the mediation seems to be constructive.

Peter ^Isotalo 16:41, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whenever you are ready, no hurry. ^(H) 16:59, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved this section to "Mediator notes". Also, I've found that the main issue here is talkpage conduct, and dispute resolution conduct and going about it, but the article-specific issues should be handled at their respective talkpages, either the article's or the user's. I'm not an medieval or cuisine/culinary expert, but the article-specific issues need to be handled on the talkpages, not here, due to consensus issues, and that the editors on the talkpages are more likely to know how to handle the situation, and about the subject matter. Cool Blue^{talk to me} 19:35, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was just about to start working on replies to details, but when I was about to retrieve a diff from H's user page, I noticed that he appears to have left Wikipedia for good because of personal threats. Despite our heated disputes, I'm truly disheartened by this and I can only hope that he changes his mind. I think his overall contributions to Wikipedia have been constructive and helpful.

Unless Athaenara feels the need to participate in any mediation, I suppose we might as well close this case. Again, though, I'm not in the least happy about this and I would much rather have talked this through than to to have H leave Wikipedia (even if I wasn't directly responsible for it).

Peter ^Isotalo 11:28, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Athaenara[edit]

(1.) I've found H very reasonable, with a good understanding of policies and guidelines. Isotalo, on the other hand, has been disruptive (see page histories on Subtlety and Entremet), deliberately and repeatedly discourteous to other editors (see posts on Talk:Subtlety - even blanked active discussion there - and posts to User talk:H), and has flung the epithet "bureaucratic" at other users' policy concerns; he seems to see no distinction between basic policies and bureaucracy. — Athaenara 06:31, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

(2.) Pursuant to understanding Isotalo's position, I began reading the diffs he provided. I'm baffled by his unawareness of his own habitual and even aggressive discourtesy, which violates both the spirit and the letter of No personal attacks and Civility policies, and by his apparent expectation that his distortions and deliberate defiance of other encyclopedic policies will be accepted as substitutes for the real thing. Isotalo should be called on that carpet he's trying to roll out for H. — Athaenara 20:50, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

The above statement has been copied from User talk:Athaenara#MedCab. This furthers my reason to agree on a dispute resolution agreement, and an article talkpage conduct agreement. Cool Blue^{talk to me} 01:39, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]