Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-10-14/DC BB

Wikipedia Mediation Cabal
Wikipedia Mediation Cabal
Article	Various
Status	Closed
Request date	00:30, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Requesting party	User:Doncram, User:Blueboar
Parties involved	User:Doncram, User:Blueboar
Mediator(s)	ROBERTMFROMLI TALK/CNTRB
Comment	Offered mediation and preselected by both users before report filed

Request details

Where is the dispute?

Doncram and Blueboar, please add any other articles

Who is involved?

What is the dispute?

Content disputes across various articles, which resulted in an edit war. Both editors wish to try to constructively edit together to achieve improved articles.

Statement by Blueboar

I think this goes beyond just content disputes... From my perspective, Doncram appears to think that the only way to improve an article is to add material, and does not seem to understand that challenging inaccurate material, removing irrelevent and trivial material and demanding reliable sources is a valid way to improve an article as well. Blueboar (talk) 05:20, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What would you like to change about this?

For a start, I would like Doncram to stop kneejerk reverting my edits and exhibit a bit of good faith. Blueboar (talk) 05:27, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How do you think we can help?

Mediator notes

01:47, 14 October 2010 (UTC) Awaiting input from Blueboar and Doncram

19:26, 14 October 2010 (UTC) Major points of discussion agreed upon by Doncram and Blueboar as a starting point:
- (bv2) in B's view, D disbelieves that B's contributions in the form of "challenging inaccurate material, removing irrelevant and trivial material and demanding reliable sources is a valid way to improve an article as well".
- (dv6) in D's view, D is unaware of substantive direct contributions by B to Wikipedia (as opposed to contributions of the challenging-removing-demanding variety)

Editor (B/D) Quick Stats

Blueboar: 25068 edits since: 2005-12-07
Doncram: 77347 edits since: 2005-07-20

Both editors are long time contributors with edit counts well over 10,000 showing valuable contributions and extensive knowledge of Wikipedia.

Dispute obviously not centered around experience or lack thereof of either participant.
Both editors (from reading related talk pages across userspace and articles) may have enough support for an RfC/U against the other - which makes that approach seem silly at best, as it is indicative of the possibility that both have raised valid points (as viewed by others), and the probability that both have made valid contributions (as viewed by others).

-ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 19:47, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Administrative notes

This Mediation Cabal case has been inactive for one week. If no activity takes place in three weeks from this date, this case will be closed automatically due to inactivity.

If you are one of the participants of this case and your mediator has become inactive, try contacting the MedCab.
If you are a mediator and cannot handle this case, set the case status to 'new' again and a new mediator will continue with the case.
If you no longer require mediation, contact your mediator and he or she will close the case.

LTC b2412 Troops Talk MedCab Talk? 09:58, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Umm, i am not familiar with this medium and am quite unsure how anything is supposed to operate. I have the feeling that User:RobertMfromLI means well in just going ahead and setting something up here, so I will support this a bit by trying to give some reaction. RobertMfromLI's original offer was within some recent dispute, offering to help in specific disagreement at two articles, and i said yes, sure, your mediating could be helpful. I understood mediating to be in the sense of a third party butting into the discussions at those 2 articles and trying to be helpful, which could possibly help bring peace at those articles.

That would not address disruptive or otherwise problematic patterns of behavior on Blueboar's part, exhibited in many articles and Talk pages. I have a little familiarity with RFC/U process, and could see using an RFC/U to detail out complaints about Blueboar's behaviors and to allow for larger community to weigh in and say that indeed yes those are problems, and how, and add more, in ways which could be more convincing to Blueboar than means used so far. And this could conceivably lead towards editing restrictions or other consequences, especially upon further events, so would not be a total waste of time even if the messages were not received. In an RFC/U i would expect that others would have comments about my interactions with Blueboar as well and I would expect to learn something or another. But mainly i would see an RFC/U as providing means for more people to say, more formally, some stuff i have been saying, and to be more convincing in a legal-like way with diffs and so on.

About this Mediation Cabal thing, I don't know. What would it be suited for addressing? I am familiar with mediation having helped in a couple real-life legal cases, but that was where there were issues that had to be settled either by the mediation or by more expensive and time-consuming court trials. Here, I don't see what needs to be, or could be, settled by some mediation in lieu of something more serious. Unless this is a chance for Blueboar to receive some feedback that would be more difficult and time-consuming mostly for the rest of us, in the RFC/U type forum. But the current statement above does not address the behavior problems, and I am not sure this mediation format can, either.

About the two articles, there is no problem currently; neither B nor I are editing in them. Would we just have an exchange of views, or something? I don't know that B and I are open to free exchange of views. I have given views, some specific comments on behaviors, to B, already, and I conceivably could give more comments, but don't know how that would fit into a mediation and what the intended outcome of a mediation would be.

I hope this extended comment is not too out of order in this mediation format. I don't like editors disregarding useful conventions, and I would appreciate this being refactored to wherever it would be better suited. I don't want to engage in a long discussion of just random back and forth. To consider using this mediation format I would need to browse some other examples and/or get some clear direction here. --doncram (talk) 03:09, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The idea here is (based on previous issues), assuming you both wish to contribute to the articles, you can use here to address issues either of you have had with content or contribution. From what I've seen so far, you both have some valid points and additions you are each trying to make in the articles, and hopefully a common ground (found in a civil fashion) can be achieved here.

Mediation is suited towards content or collaboration dispute (assuming both editors involved are interested or insistent on continuing work on the articles).

Perhaps a suitable place to start is either (a) at one or more of the points of contention that resulted in either an edit war or uncivil edit summaries/interaction, or (b) concerns each of you have over the other's contributions so that we can hopefully find a middle ground.

And yes, the current statement does not (yet) address the issues at hand, because I'd like you both, individually, without (yet) responding to each other's claims, to state the problems at hand as you each see it. At that point, I will update the issues at hand, and we can work through them point by point. Diffs would be appreciated where appropriate. And in this, I ensure you my impartiality will come with constructive criticism - if warranted. While this is my first mediation on Wikipedia, it's something I've had to (in a variety of settings) do in the real world.

ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 03:43, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Doncram... your revert of my recent edit at Order of Women Freemasons is a perfect example of what I object to in your behavior. When I edited the article (a fairly innocuous change to a section title) your knee-jerk reaction was to revert. It is seems to me that you did not so much object to the edit, as to the fact that I was the one who made it. Blueboar (talk) 14:02, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to just subside into easy back-and-forth accusations. B's edit and my reversion are discussed already at Talk:Order of Women Freemasons, clearly enough for B to get my views i think, and I don't want to rehash that here. In B's comment here, there, and above, I see a couple general views of Blueboar's that could possibly be discussed further. Let me try to identify these in an organized way. Sorry this is a bit awkward for me to characterize our views in a third person wording, but I hear B saying that

(bv1) in B's view, D often reverts B's edits in a knee-jerk way and personal way (that D would not use with a different editor), and
(bv2) in B's view, D disbelieves that B's contributions in the form of "challenging inaccurate material, removing irrelevant and trivial material and demanding reliable sources is a valid way to improve an article as well".

I/we could possible discuss either of those in some detail.

Views I have which could possibly be discussed, some of which have been expressed elsewhere, include:

(dv1) in D's view, B persists far beyond reasonable in points that have been discussed and settled by an adequate consensus of editors, trying patience of all
(dv2) in D's view, B shows poor judgment in choosing which points to address, seeming to seize upon minor/irrelevant/moot points and pursuing them endlessly, to the detriment of discussion or productive activity (e.g. research, writing) addressing more important issues
(dv3) in D's view, a variation of dv2, B seems unable to recognize when a discussion of some point can better be deferred
(dv4) in D's view, B offers no way to get him to stop on any point, is seemingly impervious to multiple editor suggestions to stop, to a degree that makes it seem useless to engage in discussion with him (essence of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT; this is dv1 put more strongly)
(dv5) in D's view, how B's efforts are intended to add up to improvement of the Wikipedia, is very unclear. Costs of B's impositions upon other editors often/usually seem to outweigh possible benefits. Costs seem not to be a consideration, but rather B seems to be making demands based upon his self-perceived right to do so, no matter what. D's view is more that editing is a privilege which we give freely to new editors, and should be more careful with extending to more experienced editors, who should demonstrate productive effect (show benefits > costs).
(dv6) in D's view, D is unaware of substantive direct contributions by B to Wikipedia (as opposed to contributions of the challenging-removing-demanding variety)
(dv7) in D's view, track record of editors, in terms of their productive efforts, and in terms of their accuracy in predictions and in other judgments, matters, and it becomes justified, natural, and important for other editors to tend to discount the views of editors with poor records relating to a given matter
(dv8) in D's view, tendentious editing by a poor-track-record editor tends to call for more and more heavy-handed reversions, terse dismissal, quicker judgement by fewer involved editors, to reduce the negative effect on articles and the community. This can lead to a cycle in which a tendentious editor gets more tendentious, bringing on more heavy-handed treatment.
(dv9) in D's view, B could make some amends by reviewing and apologizing for initiatives he has opened regarding disambiguation pages, individual Masonic buildings articles, and List of Masonic buildings, where B's strongly held initial judgments have been proven wrong or otherwise rejected by the community
(dv10) in D's view, B could make some amends with D, if B would try to recognize what D contributes in mainspace and in Talk discussions (subjective, not easy)
(dv11) in D's view, B's steady, negative pressure on every aspect of the List of Masonic buildings article has reversed and/or prevented decent editing to make the lede sensible and readable, and had other negative effects on the quality of what appears. B's claims that his edits are often immediately reverted is true, but that they have no effect is false. They cost time and goodwill and they eventually inhibit good writing. (adapted from statement at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Freemasonry#behavior issues)
(dv12) in D's view, B often undermines useful discussion by splitting the discussion, opening new discussion sections, AFDs, ANI reports, noticeboard reports, User Talk pages on essentially the same topic with small differences (wp:CANVASS is probably relevant but does not address the dilution effect)
(dv13) in D's view, D has shown a great amount of good faith towards B, far beyond necessary. When an uninvolved editor arrives and sees just the recent interaction at one or a few articles, the good faith efforts made previously are not apparent, and curt treatment can seem unfair based upon just the recent history.
(dv14) in D's view, B's frequent talk page editing practice of partial unindenting comes across as insensitive and disruptive to the collective effort of editors to have a useful discussion (discussed out somewhat at Talk:Sons of Haiti#Pennsylvania ?)
(dv15) in D's view, B's strong association with WikiProject Freemasonry and the 231 articles currently identified with that WikiProject, gives him some (not defining how much) responsibility to avoid unduly criticizing others' efforts and approaches, where the WP Freemasonry articles fall short on the same terms or in more seriously problematic ways
(dv16) in D's view, the set of Freemasonry articles come across as collectively unattractive for reflecting white/racist/segregationist views, for seeming vain/self-important/self-flattering and unduly respectful, for excessive indulgence in "boobery" (loaded term), for being "shoddy" and poorly sourced, while objective and encyclopedic tone and content are needed instead. To develop and defend these critical generalizations would require an essay and goes beyond scope of this mediation. The perceived collective problems are not the responsibility of B to address, but perception of them will naturally color others' views of B and B's interactions in other articles.
(dv17) in D's view, B appears unaware of what D feels is the tremendously productive strategy and efforts of WikiProject NRHP and WikiProject Historic sites editors, often starting with list-articles and minimal stub individual articles, which have enlisted and coordinated productive contributions of hundreds of editors and have yielded thousands of photo-illustrated, well-written pretty good articles, and have coordinated gathering and linking of information . These approaches and efforts in the NRHP wikiproject, in D's view, are substantially changing Americans' and others' knowledge and views of their own roles in history and informing their sense of place.
(dv18) in D's view, B makes repeated accusations of bad faith that are themselves unhelpful/distracting/unfair/disruptive (see point developed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Freemasonry#behavior issues)
(dv19) in D's view, B's repeated ANI/3rrnb/other administrative action requests regarding interactions with D have been mostly unhelpful, costly demands upon the community, though reflecting some wish by B for contention to be ended. B has mostly disregarded D's efforts (imperfect as they may be) to give useful feedback / to have productive communication on B's behaviors
(dv20) in D's view, B is unaware of, is not attuned to, the effects of these behaviors upon others, which in some cases confuses and brings editors in at least temporarily in support of B, but which cannot be sustained when they are involved more deeply, and which contributes to editor burnout and potentially even of editors leaving the project (Msjapan?)
(dv21) in D's view, D is willing to try to learn from comments B or others might make upon D's own behaviors and communications
(dv22) in D's view, D has gotten little of use, learning-wise, from B directly or from feedback of others in ANI discussions or elsewhere. However D appreciates Orlady's statement copied below (the one dated 14:29, 14 October 2010 (UTC)) which informs some of these dv-enumerated views. And D appreciates PershGo's standout statement dated 19:51, 2 September 2010 (UTC) at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Freemasonry#behavior issues, not adequately appreciated. And there must have been other insightful comments that do not come to mind right now. D appreciates past involvement of many in the content disagreements, but most of which only indirectly express support and do not explicitly discuss behaviors
(dv23) in D's view, B's approaches can seem to add up to becoming a Bluebore (term coined by another editor at Talk:Canton Viaduct) or "being a pain in the ass" (term used self-descriptively then erased by B at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Freemasonry#behavior issues): essentially forcing random, uninformed views upon other editors, seeming to add little of value, and becoming dislikeable, thereby undermining/exhausting potential willingness of other editors to benefit from what B may have to offer. Going forward, B has a choice whether to pursue or to avoid the "Bluebore strategy".
(dv24) in D's view, B could usefully choose to engage in "challenge-remove-demand" activity more selectively, where the critical perspective is likely to be appreciated and helpful, specifically in wp:PR and wp:FAC and wp:FAR reviewing capacities, and to avoid imposing where not asked for and not wanted.

These are some of my views, of which I think one or two could be chosen to be discussed further in this mediation, along with one or two views that B might suggest.

Also, I've browsed in Category:Wikipedia Medcab closed cases and would welcome, but have not myself found, any similar situations or good models for this mediation. --doncram (talk) 17:36, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you certainly give me a lot to think about and for us to discuss... I would like to start with (dv6) as it relates to what I was talking about and we may be able to move forward if we can reach an understanding on it ... would it be accurate to say that you think that "contributions of the challenging-removing-demanding variety" are in some way bad? Blueboar (talk) 17:57, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just returned to add dv24. That comment is nominating (bv2) and (dv6) to discuss. I would like to hear your other views about me at this point, Blueboar, too. Again not wanting to engage in argumentative back-and-forth, will await mediator direction. I am trying to discuss how to have a useful discussion, not get dragged into one path unthinkingly. --doncram (talk) 18:08, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem... I understand what you are saying. And I fully agree that an argumentative back-and-forth will not be productive. You are correct that the two points I raise above are not my only concerns ... however, I think if we can reach a mutual understanding on those two, the rest will become much easier to deal with, so I wanted to start with them. I will work up a fuller list of my views about you over the weekend ... please be patient, as a) I will be busy with off-wiki life for the next few days... and b) I want to think about the wording carefully so I can express my concerns clearly. Blueboar (talk) 18:36, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion Starting Point as of 19:35, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Agreed upon starting points for discussion:

- (bv2) in B's view, D disbelieves that B's contributions in the form of "challenging inaccurate material, removing irrelevant and trivial material and demanding reliable sources is a valid way to improve an article as well".
  - I am reviewing the contributions made by both before I formulate an opinion ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 19:35, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- (dv6) in D's view, D is unaware of substantive direct contributions by B to Wikipedia (as opposed to contributions of the challenging-removing-demanding variety)
  - As stated above, I'm still reviewing the contribs of both of you (apologies it will take a while, but you are both prolific editors). With a quick glance, I suspect both of these issues may be related to each of your opinions of the content of each other's contributions, which may be clouding both of your judgments about the quality of the content itself. ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 19:35, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

B & D, please give me a little bit to review everything... I'd like to "blame" the delay/time I need on both of you being such prolific editors, but of course it would be ludicrous to blame either or both of you for being prolific, valued contributors (and I'm not in a ludicrous mood today) ;-)

On a slightly related note on this issue; I've often found in such situations that a small (and sometimes not too small) part of the problem is related to what individual editors think is inclusion worthy, properly worded (grammar, repetitiveness, etc) or even relevant. To be 100% honest about my biases on this matter, I'm more of an inclusionist (assuming a method of including the information in a fashion that does not detract from the article as a whole can be determined). That bias may be contrary to either or both of your stances on things, so I felt it prudent to mention it. ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 19:35, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from my Talk Page

OK... I have a fresh example of the type of behavior I object to with Doncram... see the edit history of Order of Women Freemasons. His instant reaction to my ONLY edit to that article was a revert. His talk page comment shows that he assumed my edit was in some way malicious and directed at him personally. Once another editor disagreed with him he backed off. This makes me thing that what he objects to isn't the edit... it's the editor (ie me). Blueboar (talk) 13:49, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This post by Blueboar is an example of one of the difficult-to-deal-with behaviors of Blueboar, that he has split the discussion, to open discussion at yet another place. It says things in a slightly different way, makes slightly new accusations and misrepresentation, and the split itself undermines the other discussions. About the content of the edit that I objected to, the correct place to discuss is Talk:Order of Women Freemasons. About Blueboar's generalization about my own behavior, there is the mediation opened by RobertMfromLI. I don't want to respond in a ping-pong way to what Blueboar says here, but just point out the splitting of the discussion as a behavior itself. The multiple splitting behavior is one major way in which Blueboar has been widely disruptive before, in my view. I have had to invest a lot of edits into trying to corral conversation to one place; the more I have done so in past cases the more Blueboar has acted out by opening new discussion sections at more and more User, Article, and Noticeboard talk pages. RobertMfromLI, you have your work cut out for you if you wish to lead a concentrated, useful mediation. I will comment at the mediation now, and wish for there not to be further discussion here. --doncram (talk) 14:49, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My comments on this

Hello both of you. This entry may seem harsh, but I see no other way to word it. Read the intent, not the tone.

I do not appreciate conversation regarding this being outside this venue. This is one discussion, and should be kept as such. Enough said on that for now.

Further clarification is needed. I object to this edit by Blueboar (and revised by another edit following) advertising this mediation in progress. I have browsed about mediation and believe that its guidelines are generally to keep mediation self-contained, and to actively prevent splitting and even mention of it elsewhere. Blueboar, you and I could both quote from this mediation here to some useful effect in battling-type Talk elsewhere, but that would completely undermine discussion here. Mentioning the mediation is similar, although less direct. Blueboar, I'd appreciate your just reverting yourself on those comments mentioning the mediation ASAP, pending further clarification from mediator, here. --doncram (talk) 18:50, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are being overly sensitive Doncram... I don't understand Robert's request to discuss mediation issues here to mean that we are banned from simply stating in other places (and in passing) the fact that we are in mediation ... But if I have misunderstood, I apologize. Robert... let me know. Blueboar (talk) 19:14, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am trying to be serious about having a useful mediation here, and i wish you would, too. Your statements at Talk:List of Masonic buildings show a misunderstanding of what i have said so far here, in terms of views stated (specifically dv1, dv4, dv12, dv13, dv17, dv18 seem to apply). I don't think you really understand any of my views. Your commenting about the mediation there invites me to comment back about your misunderstanding, like because you ignore X pithy remark i made here, and see then the mediation would be undermined completely, the discussion would have shift to out there, where others would be appalled and involved. There has to be a line drawn, about how much the mediation is allowed to be brought into other discussions, and the line, I think, has to be that no mention of the mediation should be made. Your commenting there uses the mediation in progress to bolster a point of your own, i.e. to support the idea that you are acting in good faith and responding/changing/growing, etc., and that i am acting in bad faith by responding negatively to your suggestion there. I could go on with other observations, that the Talk discussion there is a waste of time, costs > benefits, that your bright idea is deficient, etc. Your further reply already there suggests that your posting could be another example of you proceeding by randomly making a demand, which amounts to an ultimatum upon other editors to respond immediately or that you will proceed in some way. Apparently there your implied ultimatum is that, if others do not immediately discuss, you will proceed with starting a table (which I would not welcome). I would be apprehensive about how you would do it as opposed to how I or others would, and expect that it would build in and extend contention reflected in the 500,000 bytes of Talk archives already, etc. I suppose we could talk about that ultimatum-making type behavior here, and I would prefer to discuss here about hypotheticals rather than out in the mainspace and direct Talk pages. If we are engaging in mediation. If not, it is back to battling out there. I have agreed to give this mediation a try, and you should take it seriously too. What about working on your views to share, here. --doncram (talk) 19:45, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK... thank you for explaining your complaint further. You are seeing malicious intent that is not there on my part. I would ask you to look again at my comment at Talk:List of Masonic buildings#A suggestion again, and try to see it as a reply to the comment you made above it... first, I reply to the bulk of your comment... where I think you misstated a comment I made in the past and took it out of context... so I felt the need to correct that. Then you commented: "I myself, if I wanted to develop a table here, would just proceed and do it; I would not want to participate in extended discussion".... It was in reply to this comment that I referred to this mediation... Given that we are in mediation, I am sure you would object if I "just proceed and do it" as you suggest... That was the only reason why I mentioned the mediation.

Indeed, given our past, I would object to either of us rushing in and "just proceed to do it". I would insist that others take part, and that we have a consensus before we proceed. Blueboar (talk) 20:43, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hours later i return and see you have left in the current version of the Talk page "Given that we are in mediation, I figured it was better to ask and get input from others before I just proceeded to make any significant changes to the article." You seem to want to discuss the mediation there. I would be inclined to reply there "Given that we are in mediation you should give it a rest, and leave this List of Masonic buildings article alone, until some issues are resolved in the mediation." I would appreciate your removing the "Given that we are in mediation, " phrase there, and then your dropping the subject entirely there, not saying anything more, even if others comment, and I would also. I would defer to any different direction from RobertMfromLI. But I am getting the impression you are not able or willing to trust RobertMfromLI and me and yourself to be able to have a mediation here. --doncram (talk) 22:33, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To show good faith... I will cut the reference to the mediation. However, I think it is unreasonable for me to completely halt editing that article or making good faith suggestions while we are in mediation... nor do I think that you should halt. What I would suggest instead is that we both refrain from responding to each other's comments and edits... and leave it to others to do so). Blueboar (talk) 22:55, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I requested comments here on the issues, and time to review them and both of your contributions. I would still appreciate that time.

In short review, I've noticed the following:

You both engaged in edit wars.
Neither of you seemed (even after a block) to be willing to own up to your own participation in that.
Both of you have been here long enough to understand what an edit war is.
Both of you by now (or years ago) should know that before it becomes a contentious editing situation, that you should have involved other editors to come to a consensus. There are a variety of methods available to do that, which I will not list, because I know you both are fully aware of those methods. Even if either of you (which both of you seem to think) engaged in reverting in a contentious fashion, either or both of you could have resolved that without an edit war by involving other editors, filing an RfC to come to consensus over the disputed content, or a variety of other methods - which again, I will not list, as I know both of you are more than experienced enough to know what venues were open to you.

This in no way has anything to do with the content of either of your contributions - but you both surely know that 3RR and edit war violations are prohibited except in the case of blatant vandalism. So, who's "guilty" of this? Both of you. It takes two (or more) to have an edit war. Either one of you could have dropped out and involved other editors to form a consensus before re-addressing the situation.

I am expecting that, assuming you take the time to read what I wrote and truly analyze your own actions and the paths you chose not to take to prevent edit warring, that neither of you has any contrary response to this. So, let's move on from there. This dead horse needs no more beatings.

Two Part Question

Now that we've gotten that out of the way, let's move on to the content and contributions themselves. I am still reading (as I said, you guys have made a lot of contributions, to talk pages and articles), so... patience please as I read through them.

But that brings up one question (a two parter) I have for both of you, that I would like answered so I can figure out how to proceed.

Do either of you think the other has attempted to, through their contributions, vandalize the articles that both of you contribute to? Or do you both believe, whether you disagree with the contributions (or conduct) of the other, that the edits were made in good faith to improve the articles? When you answer, please be careful in not inferring any extra meaning into the word vandalize - you both know what real vandalization is.

I am hoping to see responses from both of you for that two part question. No "...but when they..." or anything else please - you've both made those other points in detail above. Until I finish reading through your mutual contributions, I'm really only interested in answers to that two part question in specificity. Nothing else at this point.

Best, Robert ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 01:21, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Answers from Blueboar and Doncram to my two part question

No, i don't believe that B has sought to actually vandalize. Yes, although I have often disagreed with apparent strategy, conduct, or other aspects, I do believe that B has always believed his specific edits in mainspace articles would tend toward improvement of the specific articles he has addressed (so yes, they were in good faith). And likewise about his Talk page edits in Userspace and, to the extent I have seen, in Wikipedia policy space, where I do believe his goals have been, however indirectly, to improve policies and practices that would support better articles. --doncram (talk) 01:56, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, D's edits are not vandalism. I feel that they are good faith efforts made with the intent to improve articles. Blueboar (talk) 12:43, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What I see so far

Both of you concede that the other's efforts/edits/contributions are done in good faith and with an intent to improve the articles.
Both of you have valid points on what are good contributions and what are not - BUT "reality" is probably someplace inbetween
Both of you feel strongly about your edits and what you believe is non-trivial information for the articles in question
- Both of you seem to be reacting to that in an emotional method based on your strong feelings instead of looking for a middle ground.

Now some explanations of my beliefs stated above. First, I will emphasize again, I am somewhat biased towards being an inclusionist (as long as it is not at the expense of the article as a whole). Second, I am somewhat biased towards civil engineering related things (buildings, bridges, etc - historical, or otherwise remarkable). I state that so that if either of you think that anything I say next is based on those biases, that you state such and what part you think is affected by my own biases. I will do my best to separate my opinion on this from my biases on the matter at hand, but I am only human.

As an example, let's use the notability of historic buildings in one of the articles - an issue which I think did come up, if memory serves. I believe both of your points of view on it's inclusion (or lack thereof) is valid - but, that also proves something. It proves, valid as those beliefs are, neither separately is correct. Here's a personal example: when I look for a car to buy, I want something that will last "forever", that I can "drive into the ground", that's reliable and easy to maintain - to me, that's a beautiful car. My first car was a 1963 Chevy Biscayne. Half a million miles before it was finally retired - and even then, it was only retired because I hit a guard rail near head on at about 50 and bent the massive x-frame. I took it to a body shop with a "frame" bender, and the guy laughed at me, letting me know that "frame" benders were for cars that didnt have a real frame - much less one that weighed as much as some new cars. Anyway, the car was not one that many people would think is a beautiful car. On the other hand, many many people buy a car based on looks (how else, even with horrendous track records for rear traction (or lack thereof), poor control, (initially) terrible front shock tower designs, and so on, would so many Ford Mustangs ever have been sold?). Now, when it comes to structures, I am a massive fan of the Brooklyn Bridge, as, even to this day, I think it's an architectural marvel - and a gorgeous one to boot. Looks alone would make me "fall in love" with that bridge. Something the exact opposite of my feelings towards what I think is a "gorgeous" car.

The point of my ramblings? Simple. Many people don't care about such things as the historic nature of a certain building, or even the (in my opinion) beautiful design. Instead, they see "some old building" that should be razed for something more modern, and would get bored over any discussion of it's historical importance, or gothic/western/revival/whatever beauty. On the other hand, there are those who love those buildings for exactly the same reasons that the first set of people dont care about. And entire historic societies devoted to promoting, maintaining, or saving such structures.

Both points of view are valid. But neither point of view should (IMHO) ever be exclusive of the other, as it is not representative of society as a whole.

Many of both of your content disputes seem to center around such similar things. And, in my opinion, neither of you has the correct answer (exclusion of "A" and only inclusion of "B" - or vice-versa). Neither is truly representative of this society's interests as a whole. I'd think that weighing in both, and including both beliefs in balance is the way to go - which means separating one's own beliefs in order to achieve that compromise.

Back to the example at hand. We know there are historic societies (and thus people) who appreciate such things as the historic aspect of certain buildings, or the nature of the design employed (for instance, in the case of the Brooklyn Bridge, the gothic towers). We also know there are those who could care less. Finding a compromise in this means including the information in a fashion where it does not become the article or detract from the other points in the article. The article is not about the historic nature of certain buildings owned/occupied by a certain group - but yet including that information properly is a good "footnote"/"anecdotal info" to fully, properly portray the group and their buildings. Balance to be found.

The funny thing is, I think by both of you working on reaching a compromise on that and the various similar situations you both have run into, it will vastly improve the articles by allowing the articles to include such "anecdotal" information while not including it in a way that detracts from the article as a whole. But that requires, in every situation I have managed to read through so far, that both of you stop and realize two things: (1) that the other's opinions and efforts are just as valid as your own, and (2) that neither of your individual opinions and efforts are truly inclusive of what the article needs to be as a whole.

I think both of you have exhibited some knee-jerk reactions to these situations - but at this point, to that, I say, "So what? Let's move beyond that, especially since both of you know the other's efforts are an attempt at improving things". I think that with that realization in mind, as you both stated above in answer to my two part question, that perhaps you can both find common grounds on all of the articles, especially keeping in mind that both of your points are valid, and thus should balance each other.

It's interesting... in many situations, diametrically opposed views wont help an article, but in the articles I've looked through so far (still not done - work got in the way), it seems in this case, with effort on both of your parts, it will vastly help the articles to be both complete and balanced.

If either of you have particular articles in mind to point out to me, I'd greatly appreciate you pointing them out - I can read through them to come to my own conclusions, so all you need to do is point them out to me.

But back to what I've written above, I would very very much like both of your opinions on it, and again, if you think my own biases, as stated above, are affecting my opinions, I would like you to let me know where and why you think that's the case.

Best, Robert ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 01:53, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments, Responses and/or Criticism of my Observations

Robert, from my perspective you are correct in your observations. And I share your desire to move beyond the knee-jerk reactions. For my part, I am have only a passing interest in buildings... but I have an abiding and deep interest in Freemasonry. Where the two intersect is where Don and I butt heads. Blueboar (talk) 03:39, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RobertMfromLI, i sense one part of your message is for Blueboar's benefit, to the effect that he needs to get over the fact that various buildings, and lists of them, and disambiguation pages also listing them, are accepted by the community of Wikipedia editors. I think he has in fact gradually accepted that, in that after numerous failed AFDs and several challenges to him to put up or shut up, he eventually declined to open any new AFDs. I believe that every single AFD that he or other Freemasonry-focused editor opened on any of these articles failed. Some time ago in the Talk archives of Talk:List of Masonic buildings, and elsewhere since, he has acknowledged that the buildings articles are Wikipedia notable. I believe we are done with that, at the level of article notability.

We are not done, however, with Blueboar going on and on and on about the list-item-notability, i.e. the inclusion criteria for a list-article and whether each item meets it. Witness recent B edits at Talk:List of Masonic buildings. To which dv1, dv2, dv3, dv4, dv5, dv15, dv16, dv17, and perhaps others seem to apply. I am deeply frustrated by B's unwillingness to get the points given by other editors. B has a small legitimate point, that the significance of the individual items in the List of Masonic buildings article are not clear to the reader. That is true, in fact obvious. It is not necessarily to be addressed in the list-article; it first and perhaps only oughta be addressed at their individual articles. This does not give B the right to endlessly repeat that and to demand, implicitly or explicitly, that others fix it where he wishes and to his satisfaction. I would like to ask Blueboar: what does it take to get you to drop something? You don't need to reply about what goes on in your real life, but in your real life, I wonder if others deal with you by shutting a door in your face, or turning their back, or closing their customer window for you, or how they might otherwise be deliberately rude to get you to stop with something. People have politely, then less politely, then with some rudeness because you ignore all previous signals, have repeatedly given you the message that they do not want to discuss, any longer, the notability of the Masonic building items. Ways forward have been pointed out (e.g. get the stupid documents; develop the individual articles). Each new posting at the Talk page comes across as an arrogant assertion of your superiority in identifying some issue (some obvious, some which I and others do not agree with at all), and then an arrogant continuance into demands that others must satisfy your perceived need. What does it take to get you to give it a rest. What would be necessary for you to understand the rudeness of your continuing, on and on. I revert to thinking the RFC/U process is needed, towards getting an edit restriction or topic ban on B's editing.

In the recent discussion at Talk:List of Masonic buildings, i do appreciate that B indented his comments consistent with Talk page practices (dv14), that he did not make accusations of bad faith (dv18), that he has not yet split the discussion to open new ANI or noticeboard or other complaints (dv12). I do appreciate that he devoted some effort to create a proposal table in his own userspace, instead of imposing directly in mainspace and causing contention of the reversions and dispute that would have ensued. I appreciate that he actually made a proposal and waited for feedback. That put less burden on the other editors.

About RobertMfromLI's message for me, I sense that you think that I am similarly obsessed with the non-notability of Masonic stuff. I am not so obsessed. In the face of unrelenting, negative, obtuse pressure on numerous buildings-type articles, I eventually tried challenging some Freemasonry-associated non-building-type pages. At one i asked a question on its Talk page, which led actually to Blueboar AFD'ing it. I did open Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grand Lodge of Idaho (headed for Keep), but I think fairly obviously my intent there was to elicit discussion that would inform the AFD on Sons of Haiti, and it did. Sons of Haiti was kept. I added something more to Sons of Haiti article, but note zero further negative edits by B to either of those articles, now that the AFDs are settled, consistent with his editing interest having been to sway the AFDs, which is what i objected to. Blueboar's votes to delete several Freemasonry articles in AFDs does adequately show to me that Blueboar is not just negatively obsessed about buildings-type articles; he is perfectly capable also of going on negatively about other stuff too. I commented above that I do think the collection of Freemasonry articles is shoddy (dv16), generally, but unlike Blueboar if I actually wanted to work on that general issue I would see various productive ways forward that would not simply burden the community of editors.

To RobertMFromLI, i would appreciate if you could focus more on what I and B do with feedback from other editors, on whether and how we do or don't hear and respond to legitimate messages from others. There is plenty of negative-type feedback that I have gotten, cumulatively, including some from Orlady within the Talk archives at List of Masonic buildings that B might have seen, particularly regarding my having started up stub articles (which some NRHP editors really do not like). It would be complicated to go into, but I feel that i have in fact dealt productively with the negative views. Sometimes I've responded directly in discussion (e.g. my explaining honestly why i see my continuing with stub article creation seems productive) and sometimes by indirect responses (such as, for one, my starting and pursuing arduous article-improvement campaigns, which i do engage in partly to build credibility as a productive editor in response to those concerned about the stub articles, to convey that i am part of the solution not just part of the problem in their view). I wouldn't mind sharing some about that. I do wonder if B could consider any other alternatives to actually respond to negative feedback he gets. Again I do appreciate that B did not just blunder ahead with his idea for a table in the List of Masonic buildings article. --doncram (talk) 23:21, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to do a point by point on some of D's comments... because I think they are relevant to our ongoing dispute... he says:

B has a small legitimate point, that the significance of the individual items in the List of Masonic buildings article are not clear to the reader. That is true, in fact obvious.

I am please that you agree this point is legitimate... my latest suggestion (a chart) is my attempt to fix that.

It is not necessarily to be addressed in the list-article; it first and perhaps only oughta be addressed at their individual articles.

I think it needs to be addressed at both the list article and at the individual articles.

This does not give B the right to endlessly repeat that and to demand, implicitly or explicitly, that others fix it where he wishes and to his satisfaction. I would like to ask Blueboar: what does it take to get you to drop something?

Some willingness to actually address my concerns would help.

People have politely, then less politely, then with some rudeness because you ignore all previous signals, have repeatedly given you the message that they do not want to discuss, any longer, the notability of the Masonic building items. Ways forward have been pointed out (e.g. get the stupid documents; develop the individual articles).

Well, you have made your unwillingness to discuss the issue clear... others have been quite willing to discuss it (and have in fact raised their own inclusion issues).

Each new posting at the Talk page comes across as an arrogant assertion of your superiority in identifying some issue (some obvious, some which I and others do not agree with at all), and then an arrogant continuance into demands that others must satisfy your perceived need. What does it take to get you to give it a rest. What would be necessary for you to understand the rudeness of your continuing, on and on.

Try understanding that I continue to have multiple issues with the list... and so far not one of them has been resolved. That is frustrating. A blunt statement that you are tired of discussing issues and are annoyed that I keep raising them is not going to get me to shut up... a good faith effort to actually address my concerns and achieve a compromise will. Blueboar (talk) 23:54, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is obtuse and unreasonable and selfish and arrogant. You have in fact imposed upon the good will of others dozens or perhaps hundreds of times already, with respect to issues that have occured to you with respect to the Masonic building list. And you have received resolution by judgment of the community many times over. To review just a few cases, drawing mostly from just Archive 1 of Talk:List of Masonic buildings:

Your AFD on the List of Masonic buildings article was rejected
Your suggestions for alternate titles were rejected
Your questioning of notability of topic was rejected
Your deleting of red links was rejected, and your persistent complaining led to "NRHP-listed" plus a footnote to NRIS database being added for each redlink item
Your subsequent complaining about the NRIS footnote, calling for it to be deleted wikipedia-wide was, for the most part, rejected
A "placeholder" version of the NRIS footnote was developed to over-ride your objections within the one list-article. Your attempts to continue to object about what should show as the "placeholder" were eventually overridden.
Your misunderstandings about NRHP listing (one of many similar discussion sections) were addressed by information provided to you.
Your taggings of the Masonic buildings article with various negative notability tags may have led to some changes in the article, then the taggings were rejected
Your complaining about various wordings in the lede of that article led to most good writing to be deleted, leaving the stilted language that survives
Your wish for NRHP reference numbers to be added, within Talk:List of Masonic buildings/Archive 1#lede and "refimprove" tags was sufficiently derided by me that you dropped it
Many separate AFDs on related individual articles and disambiguation pages that you opened, or that your focus egged another Freemasonry editor into opening, were resolved, all by rejection of the AFD proposals. (It was MSJapan who opened Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Masonic Temple (Lahore) and several other AFDs, in general sympathy to your complaints. In the Lahore case B eventually voted Delete and also sought to prolong the discussion and to canvass elsewhere, which was eventually rejected. MSJapan, somewhat sensibly, has entirely withdrawn. Others have come in and eventually withdrawn from these issues, where in general Blueboar cries wolf, too.)
Many many many more repetitive/obtuse discussion sections that you opened at Talk:List of Masonic buildings, at ANI noticeboards, at wp:V, at wp:RSN, and at other places, were resolved.

So what you are noticing is that your sorry self did not get the resolution you wanted in many cases. Actually you did get the resolution you wanted in many cases, too. And in all cases you got extensive attention and were able to get lots of airplay, which it seems must be in part addressing your personal psychological needs.

And, so your comment amounts to: "Because B did not get B's way in all respects, B feels entitled to disrupt, to disregard community norms, and to repeat rejected demands upon other volunteer editors ad nauseum". You are mad at me and other volunteer editors, because we did not yet do the research and develop all the articles to your satisfaction. Get over it! And you feel your anger justifies splitting discussions, complaining everywhere, calling for more and more other editors to get involved, and generally disrupting Wikipedia to make the point that you feel dissed. Is that about right? --doncram (talk) 13:51, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I note that you omit all of the discussions where other editors have supported my concerns, and focused on just those where you were the only editor to reply to them... ie you list only the situations where you (and you alone) rejected my concerns.

I will also point Robert to WT:Notability/Archive 45#Lists and Notability and subsequent discussions at WT:N, where he will get a more balanced discussion on the notability issues I have raised at the article.

Ultimately, however, you are missing the point Robert was trying to make... we are both at fault for our past differences... and we need to put them behind us, and find a way to coexist now and in the future. I am willing to do this... are you? Blueboar (talk) 14:45, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pick your story. Do you want to complain that you have never been listened to, or that you have often been listened to? If you have been listened to plenty, then you should not be acting out, angrily, as you seem to do. I think my statement was not selective in the way you assert now. I pointed out that you did get response as you wished in many cases. Also, I have borne the brunt, for others, of responding to your demands, so indeed it often is just me responding. If/when another like Orlady responded, I was happy to let her do the work. If/when i respond sufficiently strongly to get you to shut up on a point, others are happy not to have to do the work. The main thing going on is that your repetitive attacks are a burden on other editors. And it seems appropriate to deal with your disruption in increasingly dismissive/curt/rude/heavy-handed ways. --doncram (talk) 14:48, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) my complaint is that YOU don't listen to others. I fully accept that there have been times where other editors have disagreed with something I have said... what I ask is that you accept that there have been times when multiple editors have agreed with me, and you have ignored them. Blueboar (talk) 15:04, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting off the track of responding on RobertFromLI's comments. But I don't know what you are talking about, about me not hearing other editors, about any specific point. I did listen to MSJapan and Orlady and you and others and have replied in AFDs and at Talk:List of Masonic buildings and elsewhere. I do not believe i have ignored others; I do believe your repetition of many-times-considered points constitutes willful ignoring and disruption. If it would make you feel this mediation is more equal, I would accept specific discussion of a point or two about my behavior, this idea or another that you might enumerate, in conjunction with your listening to and actually considering and reflecting upon a point or two which i have asserted. I'd like for RobertFromLI to comment somehow on how this mediation should stay organized. --doncram (talk) 16:18, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well... you might try reading Talk:List of Masonic buildings/Archive 4 for a start... lots of people expressing concerns about the inclusion criteria for the list. But were any of the concerns actually addressed? no. Blueboar (talk) 16:42, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to last statement of B during edit conflict, I dunno, if you want to admit, without much further discussion, that essentially all the enumberated dv1...dv24 views are valid, and that you wish to change your ways and move on, that might be okay, but i dunno. Without your/our specifically speaking to most of those, I would expect you would tend to conveniently forget / not register about them. It has required, already, a tremendous amount of effort to corral some of your previous behaviors into a coherent discussion at the Talk page of WikiProject Freemasonry about your behaviors, and again to corral some discussion here. Also, these are my comments mostly about your behavior with respect to Masonic buildings topics, but they would largely apply to your behavior in other areas where i have not been involved. This mediation is not really about any behaviors by me at all, it is all about you, and I am representing for others. If you just want to stop this mediation, because you temporarily regret the focus on your behaviors and don't want to learn/understand, only to resume the same patterns of behavior later, then that would not be okay. --doncram (talk) 14:55, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response

Actually DC, it was for both of your benefits. Nor are the snide comments above in both sets of messages warranted.

As for the rest, I will get to it when I get a break from work later. But on one simple aspect of it, consensus should rule, unless there is an overriding policy (for instance, copyvio, which probably doesnt apply to any of your (plural) problems). Neither of you have been correct on every issue. Both of you seem to like being contrary to the other. Follow consensus or self impose an interaction ban... that one's really that simple.

Again, I'll get to the rest later. ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 16:53, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You raise a good point here... Doncram feels his edits are supported by consensus, whereas I feel my edits are supported by policy. However, I disagree that his edits are supported by consensus, and he disagrees that my edits are supported by policy. Mutually exclusive positions. Blueboar (talk) 17:08, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, well, that's an easy one to fix. First, as all three of us know, most Guidelines and Policies are superseded by consensus - especially most of the ones you two seem to be at odds over. Now, as for the consensus part, perhaps if whichever of you starts a conversation, or one of the two of you if neither starts it, asks for responses in similar formats to what's used in AN/I and other type discussions? Such as:

Support: adding 300 more infoboxes to the article

Neutral: dont really care either way

etc... then it should really be a simple vote tally - assuming everyone (or someone) ensures enough people are involved in the discussion. I'll be back later (sometime late tonight) - still at work. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 18:44, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Our latest disagreement

Doncram keeps removing a chart that I am proposing at Talk:List of Masonic buildings#Preliminary chart format for us to work on, despite a request that we work on it at the talk page. It would help if Doncram better explained his objections to the proposal and why he keeps removing it. Does he object to presenting the information as a chart? Does he object to the way the chart is set up? Does he object to the information presented in the chart? Or does he simply object to the fact that I am the one proposing it? Blueboar (talk) 14:14, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SarekOfVulcan has advised Doncram to quit doing that. I predict that he will comply, making it unnecessary to figure out what his concern was. --Orlady (talk) 14:37, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I hope so. But I still would like to know what his motivations were. It will help me to better understand his point of view when it comes to our interactions in general. Blueboar (talk) 14:57, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good point! --Orlady (talk) 17:19, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, i understood this Mediation page to be for a mediation, not for splitting discussions already held elsewhere, and better held elsewhere, and not for random others' complaints or jabs. Blueboar's opening this section here seems to be just a call for RobertMfromLI to get involved further at Talk:List of Masonic buildings, where there already was plenty of scrutiny of 35+ editors watching. This mediation is not meant as an open appeals-type / ANI-type discussion board, for Blueboar to question and comment on anything and everything going on elsewhere. Blueboar is posing as three questions here, questions that are answered there. At that page, I explained why i removed a draft chart, a couple times already. I resent the imposition here, further, of more discussion of same there. I don't see that this furthers a mediation. This seems off-topic, and Orlady, I don't see a role for your commenting here now, as you seem merely to be encouraging off-topic discussion. --doncram (talk) 17:34, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean to assert that the topic of communication styles elsewhere cannot be discussed at this mediation page. This discussion, however, which opened with obtuse-seeming questions, seems not to be about clarifying anything or at least not in any organized way that i recognize. For example "Does he object to presenting the information as a chart?" seems like a bad-faith question, as it is answered elsewhere abundantly and clearly. I don't think it is a real question. Blueboar has not provided a useful observation for discussion here by this opening, nor has Blueboar enumerated views B thinks might be useful to discuss, as he promised he would this last weekend. I don't have infinite patience for random-type or ping-pong type discussion about everything. Indeed, that is a major point, in view dv1 and other views that might actually be discussed, that Blueboar seems to go on nattering indefinitely about everything, beyond the level of reasonable goodwill / patience that experienced editors should extend for a new editor. I would welcome some approach which would provide for a focused discussion at this mediation page, which might conclude something or lead to something useful. If real communication/learning can't happen, then the useful outcome is merely to demonstrate that mediation has been given a good try and that escalation to arbitration or an RFC/U about persistent disruptive behavior is then appropriate. --doncram (talk) 18:18, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In some respects, I agree that this does not further the discussion. In others, perhaps it may. While simply explaining why you moved the page is a good start, before a second move, I'd actually engage in conversation - and then move again (or take another action as agreed upon) on consensus. You both have a habit of not following all the appropriate steps when each other is involved. I still cannot understand why. One of you disagrees with the other and reverts or gets snippy and a revert/edit war ensues, laced with semi-nasty edit summaries (this statement applies to both of you, btw). That's what baffles me.

"...and that escalation to arbitration or an RFC/U about persistent disruptive behavior is then appropriate." - perhaps, but if that's the case, in my opinion, an RfC/U should be filed against you both. IIRC, both of you have considered such against the other. But this still brings us back to my points above.

Detaching the content from the contributor and evaluating it that way.
Engaging in discussion about such content/changes with other editors involved
Making concessions (on both sides) to provide a more balanced change with the help of the other editors
Giving due weight to the fact that there is relevance and importance in either of your contributions (and from what I've seen, there is - on both sides)
No longer jumping the gun on reverts when a true conversation has not happened

I can't understand where the failing is here. I've still been waiting to see if either of you can explain to me why those methods, the standard across most of Wikipedia (failing other edit wars and content disputes handled poorly) is so difficult. Nor can I understand what reason exists making it difficult - which is the more important aspect of this discussion.

That is where we are currently stuck. The behavior or actions from both of you persists, and since no rationale has been provided explaining why following the normal channels/methods is impossible, I have no idea of how to proceed (until that information is forthcoming).

Mediation isn't failing. Wikipedia isn't failing. Wikipedia's policies and guidelines aren't failing. The unwillingness both of you are showing in following, step by step, those policies and guidelines are what's making them and mediation irrelevant.

I'm truly hoping for some insight into why working towards consensus, realizing that both of you have valid points and discussing the content itself instead of the editors (via contentious comments, editing and edit summaries) is a problem.

Hoping (still) for insights into that. Best, Rob ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 19:43, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

re" ...since no rationale has been provided explaining why following the normal channels/methods is impossible, I have no idea of how to proceed (until that information is forthcoming)." I suspect that both of us think that "I am following normal channels/methods (or at least trying to) but he is not". Blueboar (talk) 21:58, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since then there have been some other disagreements, i think mostly being addressed by Talk page discussions. I am somewhat dismayed now to see this. I thought we were trying to accomplish something in this mediation forum, to have some genuine communication, instead of pursuing the RFC/U type of approach. --doncram (talk) 19:05, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am quite willing to continue our efforts here... but when another editor (Sarek) opened an RFC/U on you I decided to endorse his comments, as they accurately reflect my own interactions with you. Blueboar (talk) 19:15, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blueboar, I think you want to withdraw your certification of the drafted RFC/U there. From your comments here and at User talk:SarekOfVulcan, i think you wish to support S in some lesser way, but not yourself make the accusations and provide diffs and so on that is required/expected for a person co-starting an RFC/U. I think you might not understand how major the role is, for a co-certifier. Note at top it states "In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed." I think you would need to assert to others that you tried mediation with me and that this has failed, while in fact this is open. It will be confusing to me and others if you want instead to make some complicated case that you want to continue with this mediation but also pursue an RFC/U. It also puts me in a bad position: my basic reply to a RFC/U that you co-certify would be that in fact i am engaging in resolving disagreement with you, by this mediation with you! But I believe neither of us should point others to this mediation in progress (or even after, if it is closed). RobertMfromLI, could you please comment for Blueboar if he does not understand this? --doncram (talk) 21:04, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have you thought about the fact that Sarek's RFC/U concerns (in large part) exactly the same behavior that I am concerned with in this mediation. In other words it isn't just me who is upset about your behavior. You might take that to heart. Blueboar (talk) 00:33, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes... we are slowly going right down the path I was hoping we wouldn't... RfC/U's... which at one point or another, both of you were or are eligible for.

I've made some suggestions above on how you two could work on a better way of working with each other, but once things get heated, things start to travel in the wrong direction again. Honestly, are any of the articles in question that important that working towards a compromise isn't possible?

In the last couple of weeks, I've seen one editor dismiss another's contribution in a way that made it seem like it was solely because it was theirs. And exchanges that, even though they dont directly come out and say it, seem to be hiding incivility towards the other. No, I'm not going to point out diffs or point fingers at either of you. I point it out because I simply still don't understand "why?". One of you has to stop... permanently... and edit with real civility (ie: meaning it, and with an open mind), and the other of you has to follow that lead and do the same... followed by true consensus and compromise building... which brings up the only other question I have: who will be first? ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 02:54, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Robert, I have tried. Honestly I have. Blueboar (talk) 03:44, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One more round (of trying) from both of you perhaps? And maybe, instead of either or each of you commenting on how lame each other's proposals are, add one more step: wait to get other comments. Maybe that will give enough time to each of you to comment on the contributions without considering the contributor. ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 04:22, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would be happy to resume discussion with Blueboar here in this mediation, hopefully to actually really discuss some of the views stated above but not yet discussed. And we could discuss recent interactions and any views that Blueboar could still pose. But I feel kind of stymied here, with the RFC/U drafted by SarekOfVulcan and with Blueboar signed on, certifying to it. That seems to undermine the potential of having a real discussion here. I don't know if Blueboar understands that. I also note now a direct link in the drafted RFC/U to this mediation, from Orlady's statement there explaining why she will not join in certifying the RFC/U. I was somewhat dismayed to see the link, though I appreciate her point. And honestly I don't see how a mediation can proceed without discussing an ongoing RFC/U, or how an RFC/U could proceed without discussing the mediation. I don't think i can proceed on 2 fronts. An RFC/U is a big deal thing, it is calling for the community of Wikipedia editors to comment critically about me. I cannot withdraw from or stop an RFC/U, so if SarekOfVulcan and Blueboar proceed with the RFC/U then i think my only option will be to withdraw from this mediation. That would be too bad, i think. Anyhow for the moment i feel i can't really continue this mediation here, until the RFC/U is settled by SarekOfVulcan and Blueboar. --doncram (talk) 15:04, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that since an RFC/U has been filed, we put this mediation on hold... and return to it once the RFC/U has run its course. I expect that the RFC/U will give us both some comments to reflect on. Blueboar (talk) 15:14, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I edited Blueboar's comment to indent it.

Blueboar, I think you might not understand how the process works. The RFC/U page will be entirely deleted in about 24 hours if it is not certified by a second editor. It is still your choice to keep or withdraw your certification, before the RFC/U is processed and starts. I actually think it is confusing and unhelpful for SarekOfVulcan to put you in this position, to ask for you to certify there and to add diffs and details and so on, when this mediation is in fact in progress. If the RFC/U does proceed, i am not sure what will happen. I could possibly try to focus there on SarekOfVulcan's recent interactions with me, and try to keep the focus off of you, Blueboar, but how the RFC/U discussion goes will be mostly out of our control. I wish you would agree now to continue the mediation, perhaps with some new role for SarekOfVulcan to make outside views comments below if you feel that would be helpful, and to withdraw from the RFC/U. I won't keep discussing this at length here though; i hope my views and suggestions are clear. --doncram (talk) 16:03, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is, I actually think it will be more productive if this shifted to a venue where things are "mostly out of our control." In a venue neither of us can control, we will better find out what other people are saying about us, and hopefully this will help us learn something about ourselves... so that we can change our behavior towards each other. Blueboar (talk) 21:28, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Going Forward

Well, at this point, it's up to you all how to proceed. I agree the RfC/U needs to be completed, one way or the other before we continue here, but if addressing these issues while not engaging in the same activities that prompted mediation is not working, then an RfC/U or two is the next step. Recent history tends to lean towards an RfC/U being needed at this point. Perhaps that is the best way to go at this point. More eyes on this may help. Let me know how you two decide to proceed. Best, Rob ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 21:32, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK... the RFC/U was closed (dismissed/deleted) on procedural grounds. So I think we can continue here. Doncram, I hope you read and thought about the comments that were made there, as they echoed the problems I have had in interacting with you. As the RFC/U highlighted, others have similar problems in interacting with you.

That said... I think our recent interactions regarding the NRHP Project's "standard citation" have been a marked improvement from my perspective. You did not simply reject my concerns out of hand... but instead took my concerns seriously and suggested a way to resolve them. Instead of butting heads, we quickly found common ground. I thank you for that. If we can keep it going, then both the RFC/U and this Mediation have been successful. Blueboar (talk) 15:56, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just checking in >6 weeks later. Happily it has been relatively quiet out there. I think Blueboar appreciated my continuing with positive action in the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places#Please change the standard citation to omit the link thread that B initiated, though that is not completely resolved. And i should say i have appreciated B's polite, moderate, continued participation in that. Maybe there's been some good effect from our having had this mediation here. Is it better to revisit stuff discussed so far here, or, is it better not to disturb what rests? Wonder if some review or other concluding-type comments should be made, and then this might be wrapped up? --doncram (talk) 16:59, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Non-participant comments

This is a rehash of a suggestion I made at Doncram's talk page. Having tangled with both editors in the past (in particular, Doncram and I have a long "history"), I'm far more than an innocent bystander here. I believe that Doncram and Blueboar are both "good guys" and valued contributors, and I think they (and the rest of Wikipedia) would benefit if they would step back and discuss their editing objectives here, rather than focusing on specific editing actions:

I'm not sure how much third parties (like me) should be involved with mediations. However, I should acknowledge somewhere that I've frequently found "common cause" with your position in the contentious interactions with Blueboar and the other Freemasonry editors, but I think Blueboar is "in the right" on some items, such as Sons of Haiti. I perceive that both of you are motivated by a sincere commitment to principles (perhaps even "causes") that you hold dear, and I think it might be helpful for the two of you to try to "get acquainted" with each other (and your motivations) on that mediation page, without focusing on specific articles and perceived past misdeeds. If I'm guessing correctly about what's important to the two of you in connection with the contentious articles, I suggest that you could tell about the NRHP, what makes it interesting, the information resources that exist, and the practical challenges in documenting listed properties. Meanwhile, my hunch is that Blueboar would want to tell about the misconceptions that exist regarding Freemasonry and the challenges he has encountered in working to keep Wikipedia from disseminating misinformation. That type of conversation might create a good foundation for productive discussion of the issues that have emerged over articles like Sons of Haiti and Canton Viaduct. Just a thought.

--Orlady (talk) 14:29, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]