Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/John Howard

Include these articles

This should include all articles in this Category and subcategories as the issues are deeper than Obama comment. They are also basically unresolvable as the heart of the matter is deeply held political POV by some editors. Gnan garra 02:45, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I dunno. So long as we keep an eye on them and work to rid the articles of polemic. Views from all sides are welcome, it's when things get out of kilter you get problems and the wikipedia stops being a useful resource. --Pete (talk) 04:27, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually my problem is the continual failure for editors to believe that other editors think that something is possibly, just maybe, trivial. Shot info (talk) 04:50, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The disputes between these editors are confined to a very narrow range of articles - John Howard and David Hicks are the two worst. Other articles should be beyond the scope unless they themselves become problematic, in which case the provisions of any agreement here can be individually extended to those. Orderinchaos 05:32, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at Homeopathy for a possible solution. Clusters of admins lurking around, 1RR, and really, really open interpretation for topic bans. Worked well to clean up the edit warring, but the problem of the civil POV pusher remains. Shot info (talk) 05:39, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That Homeopathy article was dealt with via Arbcom. I think it would be worth a try at mediation, that is, civilised and ordered discussion, to see if it can be solved that way, rather than by edit waring. It's worth a try. Skyring(Pete), I invite you to join too, as it is a decent way to solve a dispute, and escalating the dispute to other means (as suggested by some on the JH Talk Page, would be sad. It's better to mediate than to escalate. Lester 06:23, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see why certain people are frightened of ArbCom. But in any case, the article was placed under a Community Prohibition, not one imposed by ArbCom (IIRC). But the main difference, admins willing to do the hard yards and enfore the Community's will. I don't see any reason why this article, and other similar "contentious" articles (for example David Hicks, Kevin Rudd etc.) are not covered by the same prohibition, just like homeopathy and similar articles. Shot info (talk) 06:30, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

I think it's the wider issue of the long term conflict between these two groups that needs to be mediated rather than this specific one (which will probably get fixed to everyone's mutual dissatisfaction at some point this week). It strikes me as just being a symptom rather than the root problem - I can think of three completely unrelated spats between the same editors over the past 6 months, all of which involve the same breakdown of negotiations and raw hostility. It goes well beyond political division, as unrelated editors of opposite political colours have been able to work together fine, and strangely almost all of these editors are normally productive, good faith contributors. Orderinchaos 05:32, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why I am disagreeing to mediation

I have appealed to User:Timeshift9 and User:Lester to provide a list of changes they want to the article in order for them to agree to remove the POV tag. They seem unwilling or unable to. Since Timeshift9 has put the POV tag on the article, it is incumbent on him to at least provide a list of demands. Mediation is pointless until we at least know what we are arguing about. --Surturz (talk) 05:38, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is the RFM is specifically focussed on the Obama issue. (that’s more than enough). The POV tag is a separate and previous issue, and I have just posted on Talk:John Howard my agreement with Stuturz for a specific, doable, and finite list of requests. Comments along the lines of “general bias” should be ignored as unworkable (and most likely simply express the POV of an editor/s). --Merbabu (talk) 05:44, 27 May 2008 (UTC)]][reply]

Why it's better to join Mediation

While we don't all agree on content issues, one thing we probably all agree on is that the editor conflicts are having a negative effect on the article. This Request for Mediation is a way to get all parties together to discuss the content, in an attempt to avoid the possibility of more serious arbitration penalties or punitive measures in the future. A mediated discussion will keep the discussion ordered and civil. This is important, as discussion out on the article talk page has been largely uncivil. I don't know why some editors feel reluctant to involve themselves in mediation, as I see no advantage for anyone to abstain. The editing behaviour on the John Howard article is at the point where I doubt if the current situation will be allowed to continue. Therefore, it is worth a try at mediation, which is about forming consensus and following Wikipedia rules. So we have 2 choices: Finding consensus and following Wikipedia rules, or receiving penalties, punitive measures and sanctions. I can't see an alternative to those two choices. Lester 02:49, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Skyring stated on the project page that: "With so many participants there's no chance of getting everyone involved, especially the minor players, and even if we did, this would probably be a nightmare to mediate." I think the issue of the large group is something for the Mediator to decide. It's possible that if the large group became unwieldy, the Mediator may handle the situation by asking each side in the dispute to choose an editor as their spokesperson. However, some people listed on the lower section of names have not participated or shown interest in the article for a long time, so possibly the Mediator will allow those names to be omitted. However, I think that especially those people involved in recent edit wars should come to mediation. Lester 03:14, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This demonstrates a problem with the way in which mediation is conceived as a solution to a kind of editorial duel, when in fact, the variety of 'positions' means we're dealing with a multifaceted polygon rather than a 2-sided plane. Its not merely an issue of taking 'sides' with Lester or SkyRing, there's a lot more going on than that, and its about the quality of content in this article - or atleast, it should be. Eyedubya (talk) 03:22, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The idea of mediation is to find a compromise that is acceptable to all parties, it's not about taking sides. I think what you're looking for at mediation is not anyone's "ideal solution" but rather something that all parties can agree is acceptable or something they can live with. I've never heard of this idea of editors choosing sides and nominating "spokesman editors" to represent each side like Lester's talking about. It sounds a bit like "Delegable proxy" which was roundly rejected by the community. Most of the mediators are very experienced and are capable of managing group discussion with varying view points, I think. Sarah 07:03, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad to hear that. And yes, I was referring to the way some people seem to be approaching the situation itself, in terms of the language used, rather than criticising mediation itself - never having been part of a WP mediation. Eyedubya (talk) 08:07, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

since two users have refused to take part, this mediation case cannot proceed ...

Well, since two users have refused to take part, this mediation case cannot proceed, so I think a good way to proceed would be for the "Obama" issue to be temporarily set aside while Lester and Peter do one-on-one mediation. The Obama issue can be revisited later. There is no need to stall the entire article just because one issue cannot be resolved right now. Beyond that, we're about an inch away from putting this under probation with general restrictions and admin discretionary sanctions or taking this to arbitration and I think if that happens we're going to see John Howard and related articles put under ArbCom probation and a bunch of people banned from AUSPOL articles, put under 1RR and Civility restrictions and the SPAs banned from Wikipedia in general, so it really would be in everyone's interests to stop the crap and come back and write a non-partisan, non-POV article and if you're not capable of doing that then you're simply no longer welcome to edit the article. Sarah 03:58, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I think we need to go down this path. Not because I enjoy SM tendencies but having bailed out of the homeopathy issue(s) due to the problems, and then seeing most (not all) of the problems cleared up by probation, I can only preach it's worthiness. Shot info (talk) 04:04, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To user:Sarah, I don't agree with your framing of the dispute as simply a dispute between me and Skyring(Pete). I'm doing most of the discussion on this page, as I try to persuade editors who were involved in an edit war to instead come to the discussion table. But that doesn't mean it's a 2 person dispute. The dispute involves all editors here. Everyone wants to input, everyone wants a say, and everyone should be involved, that's why I'm encouraging all editors to become involved in mediated discussion. There have been some negotiations going on, where some editors who have already declined to be involved have stated that they may become involved under certain circumstances. There is nothing lost by leaving the RfC open a couple of days in the hope that more people may join.Lester 04:34, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lester, I don't think this is a dispute between you and Peter. But there is a wider dispute between you and Peter that spans just about every article you both touch, including this one. The current JH dispute and the problems with you and Peter are two separate issues but they are related because the interpersonal issues between you two contaminate many articles. Peter has indicated that he would like to try mediation with you to try to resolve some of your differences and come to an understanding that will help you both edit collaboratively. I am saying I would like you two to try doing this. It has nothing to do with John Howard or any particular article and I'm not trying to frame this dispute you're having over John Howard as something between just you and Peter. It's a separate but much wider issue and I would like to see a genuine and sincere attempt to resolve it. This mediation case cannot be accepted unless the editors who have refused change their minds but either way it doesn't mean that everything has to come to a grinding halt and that other issues can't be considered and resolved, including interpersonal issues. Sarah 05:19, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah, once again you are framing it as a personal issue between myself and Skyring(Pete) that is causing problems across many articles. I disagree with that assumption. First, it's a content issue, not a personal issue, and it involves the methods and practices that editors use (not just me and Skyring(Pete)) to solve those differing ideas on content. Look at the diffs of the John Howard article and related political articles. It's not just me and Skyring(Pete). There are large numbers of people involved who have participated in those content disputes, or got involved in edit wars, many of which had nothing to do with me.Lester 05:29, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I realise the content disputes involve more editors than just you and Peter and I have never thought it was simply a personal issue between you and Peter. However, I do believe that there is a major problem with the way editors here interact with their opponents and you and Peter are a prime example. Peter has made an offer to try to find a way to improve collaboration with you but if you're unwilling, well, that's your problem. But whatever, you're welcome to the last word here - I'm not going to continue responding to you on this subject because it's clearly pointless and I'm not going to get sucked into some long back-and-forth with you over something that is only to your benefit and in your interests and that I'm really just trying to help you over. I have no vested or personal interest in any of this either way but I believe if users continue to refuse to meet each other halfway this will all come out in the wash and be sorted out for them very soon either at ArbCom or through Administrative Probation, at which point users won't have a choice any longer and there will be no more crazy debates and arguing. Sarah 06:34, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This RfM is becoming moot as the Obama episode has been inserted in the part of the "relationship with George Bush" section, in a less anti-Howard form. If certain editors had put their efforts into suggesting alternate text, rather than wasting thousands of words trying to bully people into an unnecessary mediation process, this could have been resolved a lot earlier. --Surturz (talk) 06:15, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that that removes the need for mediation. The other parties will have to agree that it's an acceptable compromise. Sarah 06:50, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I guess those of us who've moved on and want to get on with editing can presumably do so in the normal way while the mediation process fires up (or goes out?). My understanding is that b/c 2 editors have refused to be party to it, then it can't proceed as currently proposed. And if it becomes a mediation between Lester and SkyRing, that means the rest of us can carry on regardless - doesn't it? Eyedubya (talk) 08:10, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's no reason for the article to stall or be bogged down by one issue, so yes, people are free to continue editing. Even if mediation were to go ahead, people would still be able to carry on editing the article and discussing other issues while the mediation was happening (if it were to happen). Yes, that's correct, mediation can only go forward if all parties are agreeable. If anyone declines mediation then it can't go forward and people will have to try other forms of dispute resolution. Sarah 08:21, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah, your running commentaries, which continually attempt to frame this as my issue, are adversely affecting the neutrality of htis RfM. We don't need this sort of commentary, as the RfM is being set up, that tries to influence other editors about what this issue is about, and who is to blame. Such baseless announcements can only damage the prospects of this RfM. Lester 10:04, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah is only trying to help, and she has done much more to convince me of the merits of mediation than you have. Your opinion (that mediation is a process in which blame is determined) is the primary reason I am not agreeing to be involved in it. Mediation should be about working towards commonly acceptable text, it should not be about assigning blame. --Surturz (talk) 21:54, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're absolutely correct,Surturz, and that is exactly what mediation on Wikipedia is for. It isn't about blame or taking sides and it isn't about one side winning and one side losing. It's about working to try to find a compromise that all sides feel they can live with. I don't want you to feel bullied into mediation because it is 100% a voluntary process but if you have any questions or concerns about this process, I really recommend you ignore other editors and have a chat with a mediator instead. User:AGK is a good fellow and I'm sure he'd be happy to chat with you about the process and any concerns caused by what others have been claiming. Sarah 06:33, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah, thank you for your dose of much needed sanity, and for sticking you neck out but yet handling it so competently. While content is an aspect of the issues here, we all know it is much more than that. My opinion is it that rather than further (calculating?) escalation, it is time for the issues to be diffused and comparmentalised. This is what I see you doing here, so please stay firm. Cheers --Merbabu (talk) 12:29, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Obama issue exploded into an edit war as a result of differing opinions of many editors, and the methods that were deployed to resolve the issue. There were maybe 10 or more editors there, some for inclusion, some for exclusion. All the editors involved want to have a say as to what happens to the Obama content. By bringing everyone to the RfM, the intention is to give all those people a say, and come to a community decision. That's not blaming anyone. I assume we would then agree to abide by the community decision, and agree to stop further edit waring over it. We haven't done that in recent memory for the John Howard article, and it was my opinion that it was worth a try. I'm personally happy to accept whatever community decision comes from the RfM. We are following the standard Wikipedia dispute resolution process. I don't know how Obama content could be resolved between two editors, when there are many stakeholders on that issue. If there are personal or behaviour problems, then maybe that needs to be brought up at a different Wikipedia venue. But in this talk page of this RfM, I don't think it's helpful for any editor to accuse any other editor(s) of being the cause of trouble. There are other venues for those complaints, and such accusations only inflame the situation when made on this RfM talkpage. The RfM should be a neutral venue. I thought that was the point of it. Lester 00:31, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What you say is true, but as you mention the standard Wikipedia dispute resolution process, let me also mention that the rules for mediation requests allow editors to abstain from participation, in which case mediation will not proceed. I have indicated that I do not wish to participate in this RfM, I have given my reasons, and indicated that my decision is firm. This is in accordance with the rules for the mediation process, and while I might be the recipient of some personal commentary on this, the Wikipedia community will back me to the hilt and respect my decision.

However, that applies only to this specific mediation request. I have certainly not turned my back on mediation per se. --Pete (talk) 03:43, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

unconvinced by arguments for not participating

Hear hear in response to Sarah's comments. I am totally unconvinced by the arguments given for not participating:
- With so many participants there's no chance of getting everyone involved, especially the minor players, and even if we did, this would probably be a nightmare to mediate
- Mediation will not solve this issue, and I will not undertake to abide by any decision made by a mediator. There is clearly no consensus, only a slim majority. Slim majorities do not justify inclusion

The comments pre-empt mediation. Why should it be a nightmare to mediate and why should mediation not solve the issue? Why is there no chance of getting people involved? It doesn't have to be all of Australia's voters involved in the mediation, it just has to be people who are actively working on the article. I think those who aren't prepared to be involved in mediation have to query what value they add to the article and whether they should be editing it. In short these reasons do not seem to me to be a useful rationale for non-participation--Matilda ^talk 04:29, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If mediation is to be a truly voluntary process, those that choose not to participate in it should not be pilloried, nor should they be threatened with possible edit restrictions in the way that I have been. User:Lester and User:Timeshift9 have been subtly threatening me on my talk page and it is clear they were trying to make a case for restricting my account from editing political articles, probably because my political views are opposite to theirs. --Surturz (talk) 06:32, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation is voluntary, and no one will be sanctioned, disciplined, blocked or banned because they've refused to participate. You aren't the only person refusing at this point so unless the others agree your refusal doesn't make any difference to whether the case is accepted. As I said on your talk page, I'd encourage you to give it a go and if there isn't a mutually agreeable compromise that can be accepted by all parties then nothing will change and this will move onto other dispute resolution. It's not like the mediator decides an outcome and forces it on the parties. The parties must agree. Sarah 06:45, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although User:Surturz has stated on my talk page (and perhaps elsewhere) that I have already made a compromise edit that has survived so far - I added the reference to the "Ally of George Bush" section of the article. I have also suggested that the episode be added to Barack Obama, and if it survives there, then I would acquiesce to its inclusion in John Howard. These are two - I believe constructive - solutions I have proposed. Mediation and straw polling will not convince me that the episode warrants inclusion, I do not think that everybody finds these sufficient to move forward. The episode is not included in the Obama article (and I am not surprised) and nor can I find any reference to anybody discussing it on the talk page of that article? I am not sure how the suggestion that it be added to the Obama article is being progressed? Is User:Surturz actively progressing this? If not proposing constructive solutions is not enough - that is why mediation is being requested. If active editors chose not to participate then, as User:Sarah sugggests above, other methods of breaking the stalemate will be looked at. These may involve sanctions against editors - not a threat - it is just what happens when the ante is upped. --Matilda ^talk 06:49, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're saying that *I* am the one upping the ante here?! I'm not the one that is pushing for RfC and RfM here, User:Lester is. AFAIK User:Lester has not contributed any alternate versions of the text in dispute, nor made any suggestions as to how to establish consensus to remove the POV tag. User:Timeshift9 is the last editor to reinstate the POV tag, yet he is silent as to what text (either present or omitted) he is complaining about. What is the point of moderation if the people pushing for it are unwilling to detail why they want it? --Surturz (talk) 08:14, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The point of this Request for Mediation is to come to a consensual decision about whether the text about the Howard/Obama incident should be deleted from or included in the John Howard article, and if inclusion is agreed upon, to determine what is the best way to word it.Lester 04:17, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So much text has gone into this RfM, yet it was clear as soon as a single user declined to participate that it would fail. If the same amount of energy, passion and intelligence had been directed at the restructuring process, or just editing other parts of the article then real progress would have been made. So, if this RfM fails, lets not lament its passing too much. Eyedubya (talk) 07:15, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Compromise text

While we are waiting for the result of the RfM, could all interested editors please look at Talk:John_Howard#Compromise_.236 and comment. I will take silence to imply consensus as per WP:SILENCE. Many thanks, --Surturz (talk) 06:11, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Given that many of us are prepared to participate in mediation and use that process to obtain consensus I find your suggestion that our silence on parallel processes implies consent as not appropriate. Essentially I think it inappropriate that you attempt to runa a parallel process to thisone when you are not prepared to join a mediation attempt that many others are prepared to do on exactly the same question.--Matilda ^talk 07:17, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Instructions

It does not bode well for the RFM if people cannot follow even the most basic instructions at the very first stage of the mediation, which state:

Only "Agree" or "Disagree" and signatures should appear here; any comments will be removed, but can be made at the talk page.

Please address by removing comments in accordance with the instructions, and *if* they really must be said, put them here. Cheers --Merbabu (talk) 05:39, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments removed from agreement section

The instructions on the case page are very clear: please indicate one's agreement or disagreement to the offer to enter into formal mediation only, and do not include comments. I have removed a number of comments from the agreement section on the main case page; for transparency purposes, they are provided below, alongside the editor who offered the comment, and that editor's respective stance in the mediation (that is, whether they agree or disagree).

Shot info, who agreed, commented "Sure why not"; ‡
Master of Puppets, who agreed, commented "Yee"; ‡
Ratel, who agreed, commented "It's about time this was mediated.";
Skyring, who disagreed, commented "With so many participants there's no chance of getting everyone involved, especially the minor players, and even if we did, this would probably be a nightmare to mediate".

I have been particularly brutal with comments in this section, due to the notably charged atmosphere surrounding this case. Comments listed above that are annotated with ‡ are judged to be, in my opinion, not comments of any particular note; for example, one party used "Yee" rather than "Agree".

Anthøny 17:38, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Shot info's comment was much longer ("Sure why not, inclusion has zero merit, but lets see what the mediation process can do") and Orderinchaos had a blurb too. I had removed them here earlier. --Brendan [ contribs ] 18:07, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion moved from main case page

Request for the Mediation Committee

This discussion previously at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/John Howard#Request for the Mediation Committee. Anthøny 06:37, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I ask the Mediation Committee if this RfM could remain open for the standard week's duration, regardless of the agree/disagree votes. Reason is to get a picture of who is still interested, and whether they are agreeable to mediation. Also, I included everyone involved in discussion, however minimal their input. Because there are many names on the list, it is likely that some won't be interested in pursuing the subject more than their minimal participation on the discussion page. Allowing the RfC to remain open will allow an opportunity to ascertain the interest level of those who have participated minimally in the past. Thanks, Lester 01:29, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will raise the matter on the mailing list presently. In the meanwhile, I for one will not take any case management action, but I cannot guarantee that another Mediator will not. Anthøny 18:24, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is a bit of negotiation going on to try to convince some people to join the RfM. Maybe it'll lead to some joining in the next day or two, but then again maybe not. Lester 02:12, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My disagreement is solid. I'm not going to be a party to something that would turn out to be extremely difficult to mediate. --Pete (talk) 17:56, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Similarly, I am highly unlikely to change my vote to 'agree' --Surturz (talk) 21:46, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

May I point out, the Committee's ability to mediate the dispute is not the concern of the parties, with all due respect. Leave the mediation to us; all we need is party agreement. :) Anthøny 17:40, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which you do not have, with equally due respect. Quite apart from my own decision not to participate, there are any number of other parties listed, who appear to have abstained. Even if I were to change my decision here (which I will not), then mediation could still not proceed. That's the way the rules work. --Pete (talk) 03:32, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, for goodness sakes. Will you never run out of excuses to justify the thwarting of collaboration and progress on this encyclopedia? You're just trying to contain and control the content outcome by shielding it from mediation. Give it a break. --Brendan [ contribs ] 17:49, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

← Discussion moved to talk page. Anthøny 06:37, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]