Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-04-22 Noosphere

Mediation Case: 2006-04-22 Noosphere

Please observe Wikipedia:Etiquette and Talk Page Etiquette in disputes. If you submit complaints or insults your edits are likely to be removed by the mediator, any other refactoring of the mediation case by anybody but the mediator is likely to be reverted. If you are not satisfied with the mediation procedure please submit your complaints to Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal.

Request Information

Request made by: Ardenn 03:32, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the issue taking place?: Talk:Wikitruth

Who's involved?: Ardenn; Noosphere (talk · contribs)

What's going on?: User refused to let me remove personal attacks.

What would you like to change about that?: I have the right to disappear, I want all references to me removed from that talk page. I also have a right not to be attacked such as WCityMike attacked me.

If you'd prefer we work discreetly, how can we reach you?: ...

Would you be willing to be a mediator yourself, and accept a mediation assignment in a different case?

This is, following the Categorical Imperative, the idea that you might want to do

what you expect others to do. You don't have to, of course, that's why it's a question.

...

Mediator response

Evidence

Compromise offers

This section is for listing and discussing compromise offers.

Comments by others

While using the talk page of the article in question to solve a dispute is encouraged to involve a larger audience, feel free to discuss the case below if that is not possible. Other mediators are also encouraged to join in on the discussion as Wikipedia is based on consensus.

comments by 129.226.198.45

I would suggest that this case be merged with the case that Ardenn opened against MDD4696 and is directly leading up the chain of events of this incident..

This dispute started when Ardenn (talk • contribs) tagged Wikitruth for CSD-G4 an astonishing 8 times in roughly 48 hours.

these attempts were added while the article was being considered for deletion. [1],[2],[3],[4]

After this point the AfD was closed as a no-consensus keep.[5],[6],[7],[8]

Following this, Ardenn reported WCityMike (talk • contribs) for a 3RR violation. This can be seen here [9], and also filed for a request on AN/I for what Ardenn presumed to be personal attacks. [10] Following this, he procceeded to call WCityMike an "asswipe".[11]

Shortly before he was blocked, WCityMike started a section on talk about Ardenn's multiple CSD tags. [12], Ardenn hen later removed it, citiing WP:NPA [13]. This was reverted by Noosphere and myself, after removing it. I corrected him, pointing out that he probably meant WP:RPA, which is not policy, and is a disputed guideline. The correct behavior should be to enter into WP:DR, not censor other's comments.

This brings us to now. Ardenn has been misapplying policy or misapplying a guideline as policy for censorsing opposition and only using dispute resolution as a threat.--128.226.198.45 04:10, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, I just noticed this on the other RfM for ~~DDM~~ MMD. [14], point 4 strikes me as a bit vindictive.--128.226.198.45 05:10, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DDM? Do you mean MDD4696? If so, that seems to be part of the same RfM. And, with respect, your comment regarding it may be more helpful on that RfM page rather than here. -- noosphere 05:22, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Why don't you register and become a real user? Ardenn 04:12, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to be shackled.--128.226.198.45 04:21, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you're not a real, registered user, why should we even read your comments? Ardenn 04:22, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, perhaps you could tell me?--128.226.198.45 04:24, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Ardenn 04:25, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's still not an answer to my question. Well, maybe I lied. I took a look at your actions, saw what I consider to be an abuse of policy, and decided to express my feelings for it. I do believe I have that right.--128.226.198.45 04:27, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When you register, you have that right. Don't register, then STFU. Ardenn 04:32, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of personal attacks... -- noosphere 04:35, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's no policy prohibiting anonymous users from editing Wikipedia. And I don't see why everone couldn't decide for themselves whether to listen to him or not. -- noosphere 04:35, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm one of many Wikipedians who believe registration should be compulsory to edit. Ardenn 04:36, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought everyone could edit Wikipedia?--128.226.198.45 04:39, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right now, yes. That's slowly changing. Anon users can no longer create articles. Ardenn 04:40, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind the ability not to create articles. I much prefer correcting errors that I come accross in my travels over Wikipedia.--128.226.198.45 04:45, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for doing that. Your contributions are welcome. And you have every right to be here, no matter what Ardenn's personal opinions may be. -- noosphere 04:50, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will in fact "STFU" once my concerns have been addressed and/or the point is moot.--128.226.198.45 04:38, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I choose to ingore your comments because you're not registered, which is my right. Ardenn 04:41, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your own perogative. I can't force someone to do something the don't want to.--128.226.198.45 04:45, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comments by noosphere

Ardenn thrice deleted the comments of another user, WCityMike[15][16][17]. There is no policy that allows him to do this, and the WP:RPA guideline "is controversial... [and] should, at most, be interpreted strictly and used sparingly". WP:NPA says removing personal attacks "isn't policy [but] it's often seen as an appropriate reaction to extreme personal abuse". From what I can see there wasn't even the slightest hint of a personal attack, much less "extreme personal abuse" in WCMike's comments. Therefore, I judged Ardenn's deletions to be vandalism and reverted them. I stand by my decision. -- noosphere 04:13, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, this case has been withdrawn on April 23rd. -- noosphere 06:10, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Either that or he simply withdrew as mediator. Ardenn 06:21, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. Or otherwise he wouldn't have stricken the whole case but just his name. Also, if this case was still active it should be in the list of mediation cabal current cases, but it's not. It's in the archive. Ardenn, are you saying you didn't withdraw the case yourself? -- noosphere 06:33, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

I am not listed as a party involved, yet I am accused by language above: "I also have a right not to be attacked such as WCityMike attacked me."

Thus, my sole contribution to this case is to note for the mediator's usage the specific paragraph that Ardenn believes is a personal attack.

Those Wikipedia editors who believe that this page, post-AfD, does not qualify as a candidate for speedy deletion, should note that the article was once again nominated for speedy deletion by Ardenn this evening. My reversion of same led to complaints filed by Ardenn in 3RR and ANI against me. I say this not to prolong the disagreement between Ardenn and I, nor to cast aspersions upon him, but to simply to provide as ~~neutral a notice as I can phrase~~ neutrally phrased a notice as I can for others that if you believe that this article does not merit speedy deletion, you may wish to be on guard for renominations. — WCityMike ^{(T | C)} 02:22, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

— WCityMike (talk • contribs) 21:58, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I note that this mediation process, like the other, is no longer on the cabal's active case list, either. However, should a mediator open or re-open this case, please note I will not be available to address any concerns, and ask said mediator to consider the above my sole input into this particular mediation case. — WCityMike (talk • contribs) 16:45, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ardenn has stated "I have no more grievance against you" (link), which I have interpreted as a withdrawal of accusations against me from this mediation case. I thus am (in my mind) considering myself no longer an interested party in this mediation, and will withdraw my observation of same. Thank you. — WCityMike (talk • contribs) 22:16, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]