Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-09-18/Ancient Greece
| Wikipedia Mediation Cabal | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Article | Ancient Greece |
| Status | Closed |
| Request date | 14:52, 20 September 2010 (UTC) |
| Requesting party | Mcorazao (talk) |
| Comment | Mediation was not timley, a user was blocked and retired. Request reopening if desired. |
Request details[edit]
Where is the dispute?[edit]
Ancient Greece, use of the {{globalize}} template
Who is involved?[edit]
What is the dispute?[edit]
Some time ago I attempted to make edits to Ancient Greece to address my concerns with article's explicit connection of Ancient Greece uniquely to Western culture. Some other editors disagreed with those changes and reverted the edits. At the time I discussed a little and then dropped it as the discussion immediately became acrimonious. I recently decided to revisit the issue and placed the {{globalize}} template rather than attempt to directly edit the article. This has unfortunately started an edit war (removing of the template). One editor suggested using the {{dubious}} on one particular statement instead and I acquiesced though this wasn't actually the only statement that was a concern. However RJC rejected the compromise and the edit war has persisted.
Note: For reasons I don't understand SnottyWong has chosen to put himself in the middle of this (he engaged in edit warring in support of RJC for reasons that I don't understand). He has now filed a frivolous complaint at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Edit_warring_over_cleanup_templates out of apparent spite. --Mcorazao (talk) 14:24, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
What would you like to change about this?[edit]
I simply need the edit war to stop. The template was placed in good faith and I am not yet satisfied that my concerns have been addressed (they have not actually been addressed at all). I have opened an Rfc to try to solicit discussion of the issue.
As a related concern the discussion on the talk page has involved a lot of personal attacks. There has been almost nothing offered in the way of sources to defend the statements that I have a concern with.
How do you think we can help?[edit]
The main thing is to direct the other editor to stop reverting the cleanup banner and focus on participating in the discussion. Assistance in trying to redirect the discussion toward actually discussing the issue would be appreciated as well.
Mediator notes[edit]
If there is still something to mediate, I will do so if acceptable to the parties - it appears, however, that one of the participants has fully retired. Unless someone tells me I'm wrong, and there is something to mediate, I will mark this case as closed. Hipocrite (talk) 13:22, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Administrative notes[edit]
Discussion[edit]
Comment by RJC (involved editor)[edit]
This request for mediation should be denied as there is an ongoing RfC on the topic. Also, to clarify, the dubious tag was added to an unreferenced statement in place of the globalize template. I removed the dubious tag after providing two citations to support it, per WP:DUBIOUS. RJC TalkContribs 15:07, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
- The Rfc is regarding the content. This mediation request is regarding your reverting the {{globalize}} template. --Mcorazao (talk) 15:27, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
- Okay, then. We have already had a third opinion on that. It was against the use of the globalize template, said that your reinsertion of the template was pointy, and suggested that ANI would be the appropriate forum if you added it again. Moreover, the Mediation Cabal is not arbitration, which seems to be what you are looking for. RJC TalkContribs 16:07, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
- I appreciate that you sought a third opinion. SnottyWonk disagreed with the use {{globalize}} and proposed using {{dubious}} instead. I didn't agree with SW's opinion entirely but accepted it as a compromise. You rejected that compromise. The point is that neither you, nor SW, nor anyone else has a right to arbitrarily remove a cleanup banner even if you think I am wrong. Theoretically if the issue has been thoroughly discussed over an extended period, compromises have been offered regarding the concerns, and it becomes clear that an editor is maintaining a banner for reasons that have nothing to do with improving the article, it may be appropriate to remove it over his/her objections. But certainly one cannot argue that is the case here. There has been no offer of compromise of any sort on your part. And there has not yet been that much discussion (I have asked for more explicit evidence to support your assertions and you have not offered it). --Mcorazao (talk) 16:20, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Comment by SnottyWong (involved editor)[edit]
Mcorazao has been blocked for 24 hours for edit warring related to this issue and has apparently retired from Wikipedia as a result (see here for the ANI discussion that led to his block). Every editor who looked at the situation came to the same conclusion, that the globalize template was inappropriate and that Mcorazao was edit warring against consensus. Case closed, no mediation required. Thanks. SnottyWong communicate 14:42, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- I have closed the case. If mediation is requested in the future, please reopen this case and constact me. Hipocrite (talk) 17:20, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Comment by Mcorazao[edit]
For the record SnottyWong has intentionally misrepresented the facts. There cannot be consensus against an editor raising a concern. Every editor has a right to raise a concern regardless of how many disagree with that concern (granted if a discussion goes on too long without resolution it is appropriate to call the issue "moot" and say it is time to move on). For reasons that I suppose will remain a mystery (perhaps the result of a personal relationship or something else) an administrator chose to abuse his priviledges and allow RJC and SnottyWong to block the discussion. RJC refused to provide evidence to support his stance. And SnottyWong by his own admission never had any interest in the subject and all. His involvement was simply a crusade against my right to have the discussion. --Mcorazao (talk) 17:10, 19 November 2010 (UTC)