Wikipedia Mediation Cabal | |
---|---|
Article | Wikipedia:WikiProject Automobiles/Conventions |
Status | Closed |
Request date | Unknown |
Requesting party | Unknown |
Parties involved | user:IFCAR, user:Scheinwerfermann, User:Daniel J. Leivick, user:PrinceGloria, User:842U |
Mediator(s) | Kevin Murray |
Comment | Opened May 22 - will request all named parties to acknowledge participation, make opening comments, and request other interested parties to join in. |
[[Category:Wikipedia Medcab closed cases|Wikipedia:WikiProject Automobiles/Conventions]][[Category:Wikipedia medcab maintenance|Wikipedia:WikiProject Automobiles/Conventions]]
Dddike, user:IFCAR, user:Scheinwerfermann, User:Daniel J. Leivick, user:PrinceGloria, User:842U
policy is trying to be written on acceptable images for lead articles, consensus wasn't reached yet policy was added to conventions anyway, with "rough consensus" Wikipedia:WikiProject Automobiles/Conventions. I think I've stumbled across a oligarchy that "mediates" content, and attempts to educate how information is added to automobile related articles.
I get the feeling that the establishment doesn't like me questioning past procedures
The discussion of editors' behavior is beyond the scope of the mediation. --Kevin Murray (talk) 20:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
what do you recommend?
Their are multiple examples listed on IFCAR's talk page, where other editors found cause to disagree with that editor, and he simply reverts to his edit and warns the other editor of the 3RR rule to win his position. I've had objections with that editor as well, and simply gave in. This time, the objection was between 842U and IFCAR, and I decided to contribute to the dispute between them.
IFCAR moved the discussion to the project talk page, Scheinwerfermann seemed to assume the role of mediator (with bias) and the debate began. Consensus, according to these editors, is based on what the larger group says it is and the minority, as can be seen in the discussion, is disregarded. Policy was written to the conventions page while the debate and consensus vote was still going on. 842U then began to use sockpuppets to show dissent, but he was discovered and reported by Scheinwerfermann, which led to his block. Scheinwerfermann then proceeded to strike all comments made by 842U for an unknown reason, as if to relegate that editors comments and dissenting point-of-view as invalid.
Scheinwerfermann seems to advocate that Wikipedia is a burearucracy,
"What you are dismissing as a "bureaucratic approach" is, like it or not, how Wikipedia works. We have protocols and procedures and in the event of a disagreement, we follow them. But if whoever has a disagreement will dismiss the procedures and protocols as bureaucratic nonsense, then the problem won't get solved. Nobody will press your point for you; if you see something wrong and want it fixed, you will have to engage and participate directly, and the only productive way to do so is within Wikipedia's structure, however unnecessarily bureaucratic you may misperceive it to be." I assumed that he was correct until I contacted an administrator that blocked 842U for sockpuppetry, Tiptoety. I asked that admin for advice and received a reply that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy and voting is acknowledged but not encouraged with the results not necessarily binding, and then posted in links to those official policies found at "What Wikipedia is not". At one point the definition of consensus was being debated, so I went to a dictionary to learn what the word meant, and was rebuffed because the definition conflicted with the objectives of the other side.
My primary objection in this debate isn't necessarily the subject used for the image. Whatever contributes effectively to the article is the primary purpose. I object, however, to the "rulling counsel" approach that seems evident to me and the process of re-educating new editors how things are done at this project.(Dddike (talk) 14:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC))
Do I interpret that this mediation is successfully closed? --Kevin Murray (talk) 22:44, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
OK, so the blocked user is off the list of participants and we are waiting to hear from Scheinwerfermann. I suggest that parties take the weekend to see if any other members of the project have objections to the consensus claimed for this standard. If not let's try to resolve this issue on Tuesday. Thanks! --Kevin Murray (talk) 00:06, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
I am only considered part of the group if I agree with them(Dddike (talk) 01:04, 23 May 2008 (UTC))
Sorry to be late to the discussion. I was out of the country and had no internet access for ~9 days. Dddike, you may recognise much of what I'm about to say, because I posted it on your talk page and you repeatedly deleted it (once, twice) with edit summaries suggesting you have no interest in coöperative dialogue, before leaving a note on my talk page in which you state your "heels are firmly dug in". As I mentioned in my response, it's dismaying and discouraging that you seem more interested in having your way than in having your say; as PrinceGloria says and the discussion to date clearly demonstrates, you've had every opportunity to participate fully in the consensus-building process, but can't seem to grasp that in the end, if the consensus goes against what you want, there comes the time to stop insisting on your way. I will also add that I find it very challenging to place much faith in your most recent assertion that you are "confused". The consensus process and philosophy has been explained to you numerous times by numerous people, who have supplied you with numerous links to get up to speed on it. It really seems your confusion, if any, is more about your unwillingness to understand than it is about your inability to understand. It really seems like you are trying to ask the other parent because you have not received the answer you wanted.
With that context on the table, onward to my main comments: As the probable 842U sockpuppet Walltowallcarpeting (talk · contribs) alleged in his comment on your talk page (which I note you've chosen to leave in view, contrary to your normal pattern), I'm not impartial. That's correct. In fact, I have never asserted impartiality. None of us is impartial, because we are all human. One of the reasons we have the consensus doctrine on Wikipedia so that all contributors' partiality is more or less cancelled out. I took on a facilitating role in parts of the various conversations — also correct. In no way did I try to exclude those whose opinions differ from my own; take note that I specifically invited interested editors to participate whose opinion very obviously was counter to my own. Fact is, you are the only non-sock adherent to the position that a relatively poor-quality photo of a newest-model vehicle should be regarded as equal to a relatively high-quality photo of an earlier-model vehicle in auto article lead infoboxes. You are the only participant in the debate who does not agree with the consensus. All the other dissenters are either known or strongly suspected (and reported) sockpuppets of 842U (talk · contribs). That doesn't mean you're wrong, and it doesn't mean your opinion is worthless. It's just that one of the realities of Wikipedia's consensus-based decisionmaking is that sometimes we don't agree with the consensus that develops. There comes a point, which by most opinions you have passed, when the appropriate thing to do is gracefully accept that your view does not accord with the consensus and move on to more productive contributions to the encyclopædia. You are not being silenced, oppressed, railroaded, censored, or hushed up.
As for my edit to the lead photo in Subaru Forester, yep, I did make that edit. IFCAR (talk · contribs) did draw my attention to the photo, but he certainly didn't force me to make the edit or manipulate me into doing so. My agreement with his assessment of the relative quality of the two images in question does not mean I'm nefariously in cahoots with IFCAR, it just means I agree that his preference is more in line than yours with Wikipedia image policy. Sometimes an edit war can be cooled down if a third party comes in and makes an edit, thus taking away the urge to revert retributively on principle rather than on the merits of the particular edit in question. As a checkuser or simple contrib scrutiny clearly shows, I'm no lapdog of IFCAR's. He has asked me on occasion to do this or that specific thing; most often my answer has been "no" — especially recently when he has asked me to circumvent Wikipedia protocol and process relative to the discussion about lead photo images in auto articles. Likewise, I recently asked him for his input (in those terms) on a matter unrelated to the lead photo debate, and the input he provided went against my preferences. That is fine with me; I asked for (and got) his input, not his shillwork. The goal is not for one editor's opinion or preference to "win" over another's, but to improve the encyclopædia through community-supported consensus, which — I hasten to remind you — does not mean, require, or imply unanimity according to the definition we use here on Wikipedia (notwithstanding the contextually irrelevant dictionary definition you are pushing).
Finally, your suggestion I altered my talk page to hide some nefarious collusion with IFCAR is not only silly — anyone can see his request with just a couple of mouseclicks; there's nothing hidden here, and regular archiving of talk pages is utterly routine on Wikipedia — but it's also more than a little ironic given your tendency to delete critical comments from your own talk page shortly after they're posted, replacing their content with "messages read". Given this longstanding pattern of yours, I might just as easily ask you what you feel you have to hide. Baseless accusations and insinuations won't get either of us anywhere, so I suggest we both avoid them.
Notwithstanding Dddike's dissent, there is consensus on the photo quality issue and there haven't been any significant improprieties committed against Dddike in the consensus-building process related thereto. About the only issues remaining open that I see here are:
-842U (talk · contribs), under yet another of his many names, having managed to convince an admin that he won't repeat his deliberate, willful, wanton proliferation of sockpuppets to abuse and manipulate the consensus process. I am hopeful but not optimistic that all of Packa/842U's socks have been found and dealt with, and I'm more than a little shocked that this deliberate disruptor's indefinite block lasted all of about 8 days. But I am not an administrator, and so if that's the way it is, that's the way it is, and we will all just have to deal with the effects — with any luck, 842U/Packa's really going to go straight so the effects will all be positive — of that administrative decision. Dddike, please take note: this is another applied example of the philosophy I've described at length above. I don't agree with the decision, but the best thing for me to do at this point is voice my objection and then let it drop.
-The question of whether it was appropriate for me to have struck the contributions from 842U and his numerous socks. I did so because I agreed with another (legitimate) participant's suggestion that this would neutralise some of the damage and distortion 842U and his socks did to the consensus-building process, and thus help bring the protracted discussion to fruition. I chose to strike the text rather than delete it, for deletion of others' talk page contributions is generally neither permitted nor helpful. All of the text put up by 842U and his socks remain present and visible, but struck through with a line. If this was an improper action on my part, I would be interested to know what the correct procedure would be. It seems that simply un-striking the text in question would not be in the best interest of the project, for it would be tantamount to giving 842U and all of his socks full voice in a process he deliberately and inappropriately tried to disrupt and distort. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 16:17, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
As you had no authority to strike my comments, Scheinwerfermann (and in case you don't recall, I have linked you to the comments regarding your infraction from the administrator, Tiptoety), I ask that you please unstrike the comments.
Nothing here places you above the same rules you wish to enforce with respect to others. And this goes for IFCAR asking you to make an edit specifically to help him avoid the very rules you attack others for breaking -- not to mention swift and clear compliance with his request.
So, very simply, you have been informed that it was against the rules for you to strike the comments. Please un-strike the comments.' 842U (talk) 02:01, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
If the mediator is through, and reads all the discussions, a pattern is very obvious. There is a definite power struggle present, and consensus is established amongst those who matter. Besides me and 842U, there were others who dissented, but because their opinions also don't count, "consensus" has been established. Those who feel obligated to manage this tiny little kingdom of old car information can rest assured that the walls have kept out the infidels.
Congratulations; regroup to fight another day. (Dddike (talk) 14:48, 2 June 2008 (UTC))