Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-01-18 Political positions of John Edwards
| Wikipedia Mediation Cabal | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Article | Political Positions of John Edwards |
| Status | closed |
| Request date | Unknown |
| Requesting party | Unknown |
| Parties involved | Arnabdas, Blaxthos |
| Mediator(s) | Doug (talk · contribs) and MBisanz (talk · contribs) |
| Comment | One of the two parties declined mediation - case closed |
[[Category:Wikipedia Medcab closed cases|Political Positions of John Edwards]][[Category:Wikipedia medcab maintenance|Political Positions of John Edwards]]
Request details[edit]
Requesting opinions on whether or not responses to particular political positions of people should be addressed on their "political positions of" pages. Arnabdas (talk) 18:11, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Who are the involved parties?[edit]
What's going on?[edit]
User Arnabdas added in information about Senator John Edwards' support for partial birth abortion in his political positions page. User Arnabdas also proceeded to add in a criticism of Edwards that shows a possible contradiction in position. The position and the contradiction were removed by user Blaxthos, who proceeded to give user Arnabdas a warning on his talk page before discussing the issue. In a related incident, both user Arnabdas and Blaxthos apparantly agreed to allow criticism of particular positions in the Politics of Bill O'Reilly page (see that discussion page), yet Blaxthos apparantly disagrees to putting in criticism of Edwards' specific positions. Arnabdas (talk) 18:11, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
What would you like to change about that?[edit]
Would like to establish a uniform policy for all commentators and politicians with regards to their positions. Would like to have their positions, past and present, included as well as any criticism of his or her stance on the position itself (as opposed to criticism of the person or criticism of the policy in general). Arnabdas (talk) 18:11, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Mediator notes[edit]
Not prejudicing another mediator from intervening, but I'll note that the [{WP:MEDCAB]] process is:
- Voluntary, we can't make people take part in a mediation
- Does not "make" a decsion, facilitates one among willing parties
- Not the usual forum for policy debates (WP:AN, WP:VPR, WP:RFC, relevant Wikiproject, WP:ARBCOM are all more appropriate)
Some general comments, Wikipedia doesn't do original research so only if another, outside, reliable source had commented on an action, could we even consider including it. Even then, other guidlines such as WP:BLP and undue weight, would control what criticisms if any are appropriate.
Also, as a matter of style (mine, not WP:MOS), articles should not read in an asked/answered format. Its not a good diea to have each action and then a criticism of each action. MBisanz talk 09:06, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- I've opened this up. I've posted a message on the talk page for the article and I'm contacting both parties on their usertalk pages. Let's see if we can build an encyclopedia instead of bickering over it.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 08:44, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- I have posted the messages on the editors' respective talk pages. I note that User:Arnabdas has commented at User talk:Xavexgoem that the editor is hoping to reach a "consensus". I presume the editor means with User:Blaxthos. If that is so, then I think Mediation has the potential to be very fruitful. Since, however, we cannot force User:Blaxthos to mediate (and it would be against the spirit of mediation even if we could), we can't move forward until we hear from both parties that they are willing. This appears an ideal case for mediation if the parties can get past the distrust evidenced by some of the comments below. --Doug.(talk • contribs) 05:34, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
- After reading all the history, I think this dispute has largely cooled down with respect to this specific article but the trouble between the editors covers more articles and has a longer history.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 05:50, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Ok, so some users have declined to participate, no hard feelings, this just might not have been the right time or issue to mediate.. I'm closing this case and mentioning that the parties might consider alternatives such as WP:3O, WP:RFC, or appropriate wiki-projects. MBisanz talk 07:27, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Administrative notes[edit]
Discussion[edit]
Major Problems[edit]
There are several prima facie problems with this request:
- I am listed as a party and was not notified.
- The request was not posted to any talk pages.
- The requestor has been canvassing his position (examples here and here).
- The requestor recently attempted to inject a particular POV into several articles and was rebuffed by the community. During those exchanges, he received a final warning for his actions.
- The requestor has a history of acting in bad faith. See admonishments here, here, here, and here.
- The requestor has not given the community the chance (via talk pages) to confirm or refute his attempted changes (ie efforts at finding consensus).
This action is, IMHO, both extremely premature and inappropriate. I would be glad to explain why Wikipedia is not the place for "responses to political positions" of presidential candidates, but this isn't the appropriate place to do so. Thanks. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 18:49, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- I agree that this is premature (But I'm new, so who am I to talk?). Even considering the relevance of the article, this particular dispute has not approached any level requiring mediation, unofficial or otherwise. Xavexgoem (talk) 00:47, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- If both editors could contribute a revision history, that would be helpful; that, or a definitive source (.gov, or some independent oversight) on his history with the link to any and all IDX/PBA litigation. As per WP:UNDUE, any reliable source saying he DID vote or wish he'd vote, etc, etc, is also acceptable. This is a citation issue first, and a minor dispute second. Everything else is secondary (imo, and everything secondary to this dispute can only be handled by an admin). Xavexgoem (talk) 01:29, 20 January 2008 (UTC)'
- I'm sorry, but I'm not even willing to go to the trouble of doing research or otherwise participating in this process at the moment. The community should and will deal with the issue via common consensus-building practices (vis a vis the talk page). Should this arise to the level needing mediation I am more than willing to participate, but as you (and I) have acknowledged this action is premature and highly unnecessary. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 06:44, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- I apologize, and shouldn't have indented below your comment. I did the research on the history, and my opinion is that while it doesn't conform with WP:MOS, the edit left by Arnabdas ([[1]]) would be acceptable were the source not from something as partisan as National Review. IMHO, it's relevant enough that it doesn't skew towards WP:UNDUE, since the section is about his opinions on abortion. Getting rid of the Q/A format would make it a better article and put the argument in a better encyclopedic contxt, if you get my gist. I'm babbling now. Xavexgoem (talk) 17:48, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, but this isn't the place to have this discussion (especially if the case hasn't been opened/accepted). It should be done on the talk page, and should be done via RFC (assuming, of course, that the other steps of resolution dispute are followed -- namely, civil conversation on the talk page!). Continuing to discuss it here only ensures more chaos and confusion in the future. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 18:46, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, you're right. I'll keep this in mind in the future (as I should have done before). Xavexgoem (talk) 18:58, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- I am not sure if it was premature or not, but based on user Blaxthos' past actions, he has not responded to comments about disputes on Politics of Bill O'Reilly when I had requested them [[2]]. Since he never responded to my attempt at discussion, I just went ahead and edited to my best ability. The user kept on issuing warnings to me on my talk page without attempting to address the points I had brought up on the article's talk page. That is why, to avoid any further abuse by Blaxthos, I opened up this page for formal discussion. I just didn't want the previous situation to occur again where he would not respond to my points on the talk page and instead assume bad faith and give me unecessary warnings. Arnabdas (talk) 16:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- You damn near got blocked for your actions, and you were completely rebuffed by the community (many times). I'll be glad to initiate an RFC on your conduct if you continue libellous accusations that distort the truth. You attempted to insert your own analysis into an article and got spanked for it -- end of story. I'm not obligated to continue to explain why your actions were wrong, nor am I willing to allow you to do it anywhere else. This is the last time I hope we have to discuss this -- the next time will be in the form of a formal action against you. Good day. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 16:51, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- I am not sure if it was premature or not, but based on user Blaxthos' past actions, he has not responded to comments about disputes on Politics of Bill O'Reilly when I had requested them [[2]]. Since he never responded to my attempt at discussion, I just went ahead and edited to my best ability. The user kept on issuing warnings to me on my talk page without attempting to address the points I had brought up on the article's talk page. That is why, to avoid any further abuse by Blaxthos, I opened up this page for formal discussion. I just didn't want the previous situation to occur again where he would not respond to my points on the talk page and instead assume bad faith and give me unecessary warnings. Arnabdas (talk) 16:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, you're right. I'll keep this in mind in the future (as I should have done before). Xavexgoem (talk) 18:58, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, but this isn't the place to have this discussion (especially if the case hasn't been opened/accepted). It should be done on the talk page, and should be done via RFC (assuming, of course, that the other steps of resolution dispute are followed -- namely, civil conversation on the talk page!). Continuing to discuss it here only ensures more chaos and confusion in the future. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 18:46, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- I apologize, and shouldn't have indented below your comment. I did the research on the history, and my opinion is that while it doesn't conform with WP:MOS, the edit left by Arnabdas ([[1]]) would be acceptable were the source not from something as partisan as National Review. IMHO, it's relevant enough that it doesn't skew towards WP:UNDUE, since the section is about his opinions on abortion. Getting rid of the Q/A format would make it a better article and put the argument in a better encyclopedic contxt, if you get my gist. I'm babbling now. Xavexgoem (talk) 17:48, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but I'm not even willing to go to the trouble of doing research or otherwise participating in this process at the moment. The community should and will deal with the issue via common consensus-building practices (vis a vis the talk page). Should this arise to the level needing mediation I am more than willing to participate, but as you (and I) have acknowledged this action is premature and highly unnecessary. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 06:44, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Acceptance of mediation[edit]
Each party should note acceptance of mediation and acceptance of the mediators below (although other mediators may join in at anytime - this is informal). Please watchlist this page as all discussions will occur here.
- Decline - as I've noted above, this isn't the place. If we're using the scope stated by the requestor, the issue is limited to a content dispute and should be handled on the proper talk page; the requestor did not even attempt to allow the community to respond, he simply opened the request and started canvassing would-be supporters. If we're using the scope proposed by the moderators, I feel a full RFC is more appropriate -- other long-term editors in good standing have also noted the inappropriate actions of Arnadabas in the past; this isn't between two editors, and if I'm going to have to go the distance and show the why of all this it will surely be in a more official process. Important side note - Arnadabas has twice now stood down and taken a cooler tone, and I honestly believe he's not looking for conflict (nor am I). His effors are, in his mind, in good faith (though hasty and improperly implemented)... I see this as nothing more than just a new(ish) editor who gets his cart before his horse (ie acting before learning). I also acknowledge and thank the mediators for their time and tireless efforts to resolve the issue. We're all here to build a quality encyclopedia, and everyone here has shown their good faith in trying to move this forward. Hopefully the issue is moot. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 06:55, 27 January 2008 (UTC)