Wikipedia:AMA Requests for Assistance/Requests/November 2006/stone put to sky

Wikipedian filing request:

• stone put to sky (talk · contribs)

Other Wikipedians this pertains to:

• USERNAME (talk · contribs)

Wikipedia pages this pertains to:

• Talk:Allegations_of_state_terrorism_by_United_States_of_America (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs)

Questions:

Have you read the AMA FAQ?

• Answer:Yes....'been coming to Wikipedia now for some 3 - 4 years.

How would you describe the nature of this dispute? (policy violation, content dispute, personal attack, other)

• Answer: Content dispute.

What methods of Dispute Resolution have you tried so far? If you can, please provide wikilinks so that the Advocate looking over this case can see what you have done.

• Answer:Informal mediation, discussion with third parties, surveys and mediation

What do you expect to get from Advocacy?

• Answer:I'm not really sure. Essentially, the mediator is inept and has lost control of the page.

Summary:

For many weeks now I have been attempting to contribute to this article as my time permits. For most of my available time, the article was frozen. More recently, a few weeks after the page got unfrozen i began making edits that are quantitatively large, but qualitatively moderate.

By that i mean: I strove to present the evidence i feel is important, but in a way that allowed for objections and other rhetorical comments to be added freely. My edits have been made first with the conscious intent of providing enough room for the factions competing in the edit wars to each present their views satisfatorily, and second with laying a cogent and malleable framework by which the edits might progress --

Again: first, everyone can satisfactorily present the relevant facts, citations and exposition; next, we all provide - or shape - meaningful and relevant content.

Unfortunately, the page is plagued with two terrific obstacles to that goal:

Several editors who will apparently be satisfied only with the full removal of the page, and who have posted things (often through sock-puppets) like "The very idea that the United States might engage in terrorism is ridiculous and offensive; this page should be removed." (not exact, but a very close quote), and

A mediator who is more concerned with form than with resolution, and who does little to work around or through the vandalism of the page.

After several weeks of watching this unfold, i've come to the conclusion that the biggest obstruction to resolution is the mediator himself; because of his pedantic triviality, the page inevitably winds up wandering directionless, back and forth between edits, until it winds up in a virtually content-free state.

A few examples of his zeal:

most recently i was asked to provide a citation for a sentence that said nothing more than that the FBI's definition of 'legal' is based on the local and federal laws of the U.S.

I was also asked to provide a citation showing that there is no universally acknowledged international court.

Meanwhile, citations referencing a respected Academic from a widely respected Swiss government military and political research institute were deleted because two editors objected -- without reference or citation of any sort -- that he was a crank and an "anti-semite".

The examples of this sort are abundant, and have at one or another time included some or all of the list below:

Moderate exposition explaining radical viewpoints has been eliminated wholesale because the viewpoints themselves weren't widely accepted in British/American publications

No non-english references allowed

No non-government sources allowed

Only quotations by 'widely regarded' people who are acknowledged 'authorities' in their field

No quotations by people who have not worked or served in the U.S. government or military, or in organizations specifically dealing with the classification and analysis of terrorism and terrorist acts

No activists or "biased" political groups allowed unless they are "widely respected authorities"

Only reference to "current events" will be allowed (i.e. -- nothing 'historical')

Arbitrary limits which contradict accepted works of reference have been placed on the definition of "terrorism", disallowing war crimes and miltary massacres in particular

No quoted referent in the article may be included unless the author specifically uses the word "terrorism"

Hyperbolic -- and nearly always exaggeratedly false -- assertions about the character and trustworthiness of included sources and authors

And perhaps most importantly:

Virtually no additions to the content of the page have been made by this cadre of editors. Virtually their entire editorial activity is simply to challenge and delete, nothing more.

Now, i fully understand that in the course of debate all of these techniques are common and allowable; but in the case of this particluar page, they have all been taken to the utmost fringe of extremism imaginable.

Even so, in the interest of resolving the dispute I would be willing to concede some of these points; however, taken together the list serves to limit the list of "acceptable sources" to publications by the United States Government and popular U.S. and British publications.

It seems obvious to me that in the context of an article discussing the typology and substance of foreign accusations / evidence / public judgements against the United States, one might need to make reference to the publications, reports, and opinions -- government or otherwise -- of other nations, particularly some of those non-english-speaking types. Similarly, the opinions and analysis of historians, eye-witnesses, non-specialist journalists and objectors, observers and analysts of conscience -- so long as they are factually accurate -- do not lack any validity when compared to the opinions of government agents.

I am not casting any aspersions upon the intent or sincerity of the current mediator; I am sure he is conscientious. Unfortunatley, he is also worse than useless, as in the situation i mentioned above: when the Swiss academician's citations were deleted wholesale -- again, because of entirely unfounded, cockamamie accusations of "anti-semitism" -- the mediator's attempt at "resolution" was to let the deletions stand and ask if there were other places a similar quote could be garnered.

This results in the vandals of the page forcing the conscientious editors to play a never-ending game of whack-a-mole: a reference is accepted for as long as it can fly under the radar, and then trumped-up objections to it are floated, justifications demanded, the mediator goes along, and slowly the passage is whittled down until the exposition is devoid of any content. Then attention is drawn to the new batch of "objections", and the game begins again.

There are other examples of the mediator's incompetence, but i won't go into them; the problem here is simple: we need a better mediator, someone who can read beyond simple matters of style and bibliographical content. Preferably it should be someone moderate who is not an American, capable of empathizing with, say, the Chinese, Iraqis, or Brazilians as well as the Yanks.

The page is admittedly a political hot-button, but it should be a small matter for the mediator to elicit evidence of malicious intent and then work accordingly, focusing on the more conscientious editors (of whatever political bent is irrelevant to me) to build a page that serves a legitimate and informative purpose. Personally, i couldn't care less whether my edits stand or are deleted, so long as both sides are represented.

However, I do very much care if this particular subject is whitewashed with misinformation. I am perfectly willing for objections to my interpretation to be voiced, but utterly unwilling to allow the facts to be whittled off into oblivion.

Unfortunately, the current situation has degenerated to a state where the mediator essentially takes a vote, sees which side has the most advocates, and then from that decides what changes should be made. Consequently, the pattern that has emerged is that whenever meaningful, pertinent content is added the page is vandalized, many of the citations objected to and eventually stripped, then frozen in its vandalized state on the basis of the few remaining citations left standing. Then, for anywhere from a few days to weeks, the mediator "waits" for everyone to "cool down" or "reach a consensus" and the process begins again.

Meanwhile, the page is a confused, sloppy, unintelligbile mess that does very little to explain or present the topic it has undertaken. And there is no means underway addressing how to resolve the impasse.

Discussion:

To whom are you referring in relation to the mediator? I've read through the majority of talk on the article and the only mediator I can see being assigned is Wikizach from the Mediation Cabal. Some of your comments seem to imply that NuclearUmpf is acting as a mediator, which I don't think is happening. With whose actions do you specifically have a problem (try to refer to actions not personality, to avoid personal attacks)? And what would you want from an advocate? Trebor 00:46, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Apoligies if I am posting were I shouldn't, the only mediator we have had is: User:Wikizach.

I requested the mediator: Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-08-17 Allegations of state terrorism by United States of America

In an effort to build consensus, User:Wikizach was nice enough to total the strawpoll and decide what should be kept, and what should be removed.

The Results of the strawpoll are here: Talk:Allegations_of_state_terrorism_by_United_States_of_America/archive4#RESULTS

Strawpoll found here: Talk:Allegations of state terrorism by United States of America-strawpolls

If stone put to sky wants to build consensus and comprimise, he could sacrfice the Gladio section. This would make him appear like the person comprimising, and it would again show clearly how the other parties refuses to comprimise in return. Maybe the Gladio section can be moved to the "See also" section instead? Would this be a satisfactory comprimise?

Hope this clairifies things, I am contacing the mediator, User:Wikizach for further clarification. I hope stone put to sky is not actually talking about the mediator. I think User:Wikizach did a great job considering the animosity, strong emotions, and history of piety-ness of all parties. Travb (talk) 17:18, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. Trebor 19:14, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

First off, i haven't insisted on anything. The only changes i've made to the page *at* *all* have been those i recently posted.

Second: yes, i was wrong in referring to NuclearZero/Umpf as a "mediator". My mistake. In my frustration with the page i got confused about his place in the process. His presence on the page often assumes an authoritative and editorial tone.

Finally, the "straw poll" was nothing more than a vote to see what content should stay and what should go; in many cases, dissenting voices were outright ignored or sidelined, regardless of the merits or de-merits of their comments.

I was under the mistaken impression that the mediator who conducted the straw poll and "NuclearUmpf" were the same (i was thinking "Ump = Umpire").

My crticisms of the mediator's handling of the situation stand, however. The "straw poll" did little more than eliminate most of the page content according to unstated and unexamined assumptions about the page's purpose; there was no attempt to establish a consensus about what purpose the page serves, and indeed when there *was* an attempt made several of the current editors and their sock-puppets popped out to say that they felt the page should be deleted out-right because they are offended by it.

The need here is simple: either put a mediator in charge who is more sincere in attempting to establish consensus aobut the page's purpose and raison d'etre, or start taking some sort of action against people who have already demonstrated -- through their actions and words -- that their only intent is to deface the page.

In the current U.S. political climate, it's no surprise that there are a large number of people who are offended and become violent when challenged with an association between the U.S. government and acts of terrorism. In the case of this particular page, these types have created a gang whose sole intent is to censor content they don't like to think about. The number of people who might be able to defend it are few, and -- at least in my case -- quite busy. I and others don't have time to defend a page like this from people like that.

This is not to say i'm not open to compromise and negotiation, but in the current environment there is simply no way for the current page to move forward; one person adds content, and then fifteen people object and render it silent. It's a closed loop that works in *nobody's* interest, and there needs to be some sort of intervention to put it aright. — Preceding unsigned comment added by stone put to sky (talk • contribs)

All I have ever asked is that the source presented actually alleges that the US commited an act of terrorism. I slammed heads with another user and they went and added sources and I do not touch a single section like it. This user doesn't want to add sources stating things like "There is no international court that can rule on terrorism" as being common sense and not requiring a source. They also write that, the US manipulates its list of nations sponsoring terrorism on flimsy evidence, and refused to source that as well. I have not gone over the current sources added, one seems to be a college kids paper as it lacks even a cover letter, introduction etc that would be found in a real book, another source was a blog called GlobalResearch ran and maintained by a single person with no editorial oversight, failing WP:RS. Again, good sources means items can stay, actual allegations of terrorism by WP:RS and WP:V guidelines are things I have no problem with. --NuclearZer0 19:01, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, but here's not the place to argue this - please keep it to relevant talk pages. Thanks. Trebor 21:29, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

This kind of is, its what his whole complaint above is about, its over me telling him he needs sources, he added a bunch of other things that I have never said or that he simply assumed was my position. While he didnt actually mention my name, I am in fact the subject. For further evidence he threatened to report me to the editors, who that is I do not know, then filed this. --NuclearZer0 15:44, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not saying what he did or didn't do, but this page is for discussion between possible advocates and the user about the situation, prior to becoming an advocate - it is not another place to argue, regardless of whether you think his comments were justified or not. Thanks. Trebor 17:08, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Well if you dont want to hear my side then don't come to me when you actually need to advocate something. I would love to see an advocate, advocate alone, it will be interesting. --NuclearZer0 03:50, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I removed my comments about both parties. Recently, User:Zer0faults has had a definate change of heart, and I respect this change, stone put to sky could learn a lot from User:Zer0faults current editing behavior and diplomacy. I look forward to working with both of these editors in the future. Stone put to sky, Thank you so much for toning down your comments here:Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Seabhcan#Outside_view_of_User:Stone_put_to_sky. Travb (talk) 14:57, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Followup:

When the case is finished, please take a minute to fill out the following survey:

Did you find the Advocacy process useful?

• Answer:

Did your Advocate handle your case in an appropriate manner?

• Answer:

On a scale of 1 (worst) to 5 (best), how polite was your Advocate?

• Answer:

On a scale of 1 to 5, how effective do you feel your Advocate was in solving the problem?

• Answer:

On a scale of 1 to 5, how effective do you feel the Advocacy process is altogether?

• Answer:

If there were one thing that you would like to see different in the Advocacy process, what would it be?

• Answer:

If you were to deal with this dispute again, what would you do differently, if anything?

• Answer:

AMA Information

Case Status: open

Advocate Status:

• User:Trebor Rowntree is on this one. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 21:49, 18 November 2006 (UTC)