Current informal mediation cases.

2007-05-28 Purgatory[edit]

Request Information[edit]

Who are the involved parties?[edit]

Jonathan Tweet and Lima, secondarily Alecmconroy.

What is the involved article(s)?[edit]

What's going on?[edit]

Purgatory was given a pro-Catholic POV overhaul in February. The POV editor resigned during mediation. Alecmconroy and I have tried to get the page into shape, but Lima keeps burdening the text with defenses of Catholicism. Alecmconroy and I are having a hard time getting the page in shape, and it's still something of a mess. As part of a pattern, Lima is also defending a pro-Catholic POV on Original Sin and Limbo, generally to each page's detriment.

Now he's followed me to Lake of Fire, and he's doing the same. Jonathan Tweet 14:20, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Now he's followed me to Early Christianity and Logos. Are we waiting for Alecmconroy to respond?Jonathan Tweet 21:19, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I will be extending an open invitation for Alec to join us, however he seems to be relatively inactive lately. Is there anyone else who should be invited to discuss the disagreement? Vassyana 20:05, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

There's no one else. Jonathan Tweet 20:15, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Lima is still following me from page to page overwriting my edits. I haven't taken any particular action to stop him because I think that once this process starts he might settle down. I don't mean to badger our volunteer mediator, but if there were an estimate on when we might get rolling, I'd appreciate knowing it. Jonathan Tweet 13:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Lima and I are currently discussing the lead, with other editors, at talk:Purgatory. Jonathan Tweet 16:42, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Lead controversy: Lima thinks that his first, short lead was OK even though it patently ignores WP:LEAD. (For my part, I see the POV in my own lead, especially when it's pointed out by a neutral party.) I am happy to reason with reasonable editors that I disagree with, but I offer Lima's view of his lead as evidence that he's not a reasonable editor. We both come to this process with some degree of bias and ignorance, so what matters is being open to being corrected. I think it's obvious how little luck I would have had trying to reach a compromise with Lima on the lead issue if just the two of us were working it out. Jonathan Tweet 12:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

SPA:I'm not sure where to comment on the dispute as it proceeds, so I'm writing this here. The latest is that someone opened a SPA in order to revise the lead that we're stuggling over. The wording this editor uses reminds me of LostCaesar's (the guy who retired from WP during the last Purgatory dispute). I'm pretty sure that LC has been editing some of his favored articles anonymously, and he seems a likely candidate for the SPA. Here I'm out of my depth as I have no clue how to track or spot sock puppets. Is there anything we can do to clear this up? Jonathan Tweet 11:38, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I will take a look over the contributors and situation. I will warn or report any problematic accounts as appropriate. Thanks for the heads up. Vassyana 12:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Impasse: Lima and I seem to be at an impasse. Please see Talk:Purgatory. User:Jonathan Tweet, 22 June 2007

AFK: I'm out of town for a week starting Thursday. Jonathan Tweet 13:56, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Impasse: We still have SCL's/LostCaesar's POV lead. Major issues, such as inclusion of a "purgatory in the Bible" section, are unaddressed. Someone's taken the POV tag off. Any advice? Jonathan Tweet 13:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

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

I'd like to get a span of time, say a week, to give Purgatory the top-to-bottom work that it could use to get it out of its POV condition. I'd like Lima to leave the page alone during that time so that I can make unhindered progress. Then I'd like another span of time, say another week, in which neither Lima nor I edits the page but other editors can correct any errors or biases I might have put in. Then we should have a pretty good version of the article, and if Lima wants to edit it, at least we're starting from a solid position.

I'd also like someone with some perceived authority to ask Lima to ease up on the pro-Catholic POV. In particular, he wants to downplay Catholic teaching that's not dogma. Since most Catholic teaching on controversial points (e.g., purgatory, limbo, original sin) is not dogma, downplaying nondogmatic Catholic tradition is meant to reduce the Church's exposure to criticism.

EB Lede: We're at an impasse. Here's what I'd like next. I'm willing to start over and summarize the Encyclopedia Britannica Online article about purgatory and use the summary as our lede. I'm not willing to do that much work if Lima can simply nullify it by withholding consensus for no good reason. On page after page, he messes with my work, and it's gotten old. But Lima has agreed to follow WP guidelines and policies, so here's my suggestion. I go to the work of building a brand new lead based on EB, then Lima critiques it according to NPOV, NOR, WP:LEDE, etc. If my summary shows that I'm a closed-minded POV-pusher who can't be trusted to summarize information fairly, then I get banned from Purgatory so the page can move forward. If Lima's critique shows that after all this time he still can't apply NPOV, NOR, and WP:LEDE to this controversial topic, then he gets banned from Purgatory so the page can move forward. If both of us prove to be reasonable, competent editors who can contribute usefully to a controversial topic, then hurray, we have a new lead that's in line with policies and guidelines, and we have a big group hug. Or we could reverse roles and have Lima do the summarizing, though I don't have high hopes for that approach. Banning is extreme, but Lima and I are so far at odds that one of us (or both) has got to be out of line. Jonathan Tweet 14:10, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

What does the encyclopedia britannica say that interests you? Sanctum Cor Leonis 20:01, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

LostCaesar, I'd be happy to answer your question, but please identify yourself first. Jonathan Tweet 14:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Since Jonathan Tweet no longer seems to be pressing his request to be given a free hand in editing the article, and since my absence of several weeks must have shown that I was not a mere lone voice contradicting some vast majority of which he considered himself the spokesman, I think this discussion can be considered closed, and I will, within a few days, remove it from my watchlist. Lima 18:47, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm back, but any mediation that can be stymied by mere foot-dragging wasn't going to get us anywhere, anyway. Jonathan Tweet 14:17, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Mediator response[edit]

Please indicate your acceptance or rejection of my assistance as an informal mediator.

Accept[edit]

Jonathan Tweet 22:00, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
I am surprised that this ridiculously arrogant request to be given a free hand so as to stamp a Wikipedia article with a particular personal POV has been entertained. Let the complainant make source-supported edits, just like anybody else. Lima 04:52, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Reject[edit]

...

Administrative notes[edit]

See also Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-04-23 Purgatory. --Ideogram 14:10, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-04-15 Fellowship of Friends[edit]

Request Information[edit]

Who are the involved parties?[edit]

wine-in-ark (originator of the page) mfantoni,baby dove, nixwisser (other substantial editors who have agreed to mediation)

What's going on?[edit]

The page is about a religious organization and the editing is very contentious. There is substantial disagreement about what is relevant content, and what are acceptable sources. There is very little published material on the subject so this is a crucial issue.

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

1. Any suggestions on how to proceed would be helpful. 2. Real-world advice from experienced editors on how to interpret and apply WP:RS, "comments on living persons" policy and other Wikipedia standards and practices. The policies can be (and have been) interpreted very differently by different editors so advice on which interpretations seem appropriate and common-sensical in the context of this page is needed.

Mediator response[edit]

Administrative notes[edit]

Mediation has been accepted by consensus and is now in progress. Coren 03:55, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikicode[edit]

= [[Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/CASEPAGE]] =
{{Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/CASEPAGE}}

Other[edit]

Talk:Prem Rawat[edit]

Misc[edit]

Other mediations.