Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-08-16 Glenn Danzig

Mediation Case: Glenn Danzig
Please observe 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: Enzigel 08:54, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Where is the issue taking place?
 * This is the dispute over content of Glenn Danzig page that is available on it's [| talk page]


 * Who's involved?
 * Users G.g. and Enzigel


 * What's going on?
 * This is growing into revert wars.


 * ''What would you like to change about that?
 * I would like for someone competent, with knowledge of content policies, especially biographies policy, to come and provide opinion about part of the article one of the persons involved is constantly trying to include in wikipedia.


 * Would you prefer we work discreetly? If so, how can we reach you?
 * No.

Standards for Informal Mediation (CQJ version)

 * 1) You agree to follow all applicable Wikipedia policies.
 * 2) You agree to keep all statements brief and under 500 words.
 * 3) You specifically agree not to engage in WP:NPA or WP:CIVIL to each other or to other users who may intercede throughout the course of the mediation.
 * 4) You agree to cease and desist any editing on the disputed article, section, or set of articles.
 * 5) You agree that the mediator is not a judge, the mediator is only another editor attempting to help you out.  The mediator has no official enforcement action and may refer instances where Wikipedia policy have been violated to an administrator or the Arbitration Committee where he sees fit. As such, the mediator is bound to follow Wikipedia policy as another editor and cannot overrule any standing Wikipedia policy.

''Disputants, please sign the section below, indicating that you've seen and agree to follow my standards for informal mediation. ''

Signed by Enzigel
Yeah, I Do :) Enzigel 17:12, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Signed by G.g.
I agree to a mediation process.....but this mediation has already failed when Enzigel engages in WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL, as outlined in point 4 of the 'Standards for Informal Mediation' in his 'Discussion By Enzigel' at the foot of this page. G.g 14:19, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Statement by G.g

 * Your mediation is still needed, CQJ. Perhaps a dose of your input can help settle this article and keep its contributors working together, not against each other. The short and to the point complaint is....Enzigel in the main contributes too much pro-Danzig glorification, and deletes well-sourced truthful facts or sourced "negative" (balanced) contributions/facts. His way or the highway. At heart, he stands behind the reasoning that nothing at all with a negative connotation can be written about Glenn Danzig under Biography of Living Persons. However, the NPOV does state only "unsourced or poorly sourced negatives" should be deleted. Now, I agree with NPOVs, but he or others take it way too far and spoil the integrity of the article. I'm just trying to tone down the glorification, their sly use of sourcing overly-positive links in order to get away with 'butt-kissing' the subject matter. If there's an NPOV for UNSOURCED negative comments, there should be an NPOV for SOURCED overly-positive glorification of subject matter as well. G.g. 17 August, 2006


 * Check out this link for the kind of article that Wikipedia's biography should more resemble. The depth, scope and balance of it. Fleshing the man out, providing both sides of the subject matter within good journalism. This Wikipedia article is a shambles compared to it. It's skeletal and deprived of even-handedness due to rail-roading edits and pro-Glenn biases that only undermine the article's integrity. G.g. 17 August 2006


 * Check out the Discussion page, read the disputes in their entirety, please. G.g. 18 August 2006

Mediator response
That's more of a WP:3O thing, but I've stopped by. The article looks okay, what exactly is the issue at hand? CQJ 18:33, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

After posting the intial G.g. comment to my userspace, I posted this.

Thanks for your quick response. Before we begin, I'll say this - I follow the spirit of the policy, not the letter, and I recommend a review of applicable Wikipedia policies at your earliest convenience. A copy of this note will be posted on the MedCab case page so the other disputant can see it as well. Enjoy your day. CQJ 15:05, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Comments about the Mediation Cabal case should go on the case page - not my talk page (where you originally posted this), and especially not using every little diff and every little argument you've already used on the Danzig talk page.
 * 2) Please keep all of your comments under 500 words. Disputants who take the wordy high-road with me don't get far, especially since I already have attempted to read the article talk page, comments that you and the other disputant have traded back and forth, and most of the last 100 revisions you and the other fellow were responsible for.  Multiply that times three (my average "case load"), and most of my spare time is sucked into reading arguments and not doing fun stuff like editing.

And when I finally started to see what was happening on the Danzig page, I posted this.

Knock it off. Right now. I asked for a short explanation of the facts at hand, not this trundled out crap where you both basically fought back and forth for, oh, let's see...about four hours. So, it would appear that we're going to have to work the structured approach on this case since the loose, seat-of the pants style isn't going to work. You both need to visit the Mediation Cabal case page before I'll even lift another finger on this one and familiarize yourselves with Wikipedia policy. No more spamming my talk page, no more spamming this page, no more spamming the case page. This argument is going to effectively end right now before either of you two draw an administrator's attention here, and then there will be nothing that I can do to help either side of the issue except say "See, you should have followed my advice and kept it short, instead of starting another reversion war laden with personal attacks and incivility."

CQJ 15:23, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Resolution
There is a sandbox copy of this article that I've cleaned up a bit. It's located here. There are some other ground rules that I'd like to establish on this sandbox version, and I'll copy/paste this to the case page so everyone involved sees it.
 * 1) Make one edit at a time. Make your edit, include your rationale in the summary, and go to the case page if you can't explain it well enough so I and the other party can see what your thinking is.  If you'd like to change more than one thing, please do so over a series of edits, not just in one edit. Each edit should have a corresponding summary.
 * 2) Number all of your edits.  Otherwise, we'll have to use diff numbers to refer to particular edits.  What I recommend is like (G.g edit #1 - blah blah blah) or (CQJ edit #4 - blah blah blah).
 * 3) Once the other guy has made an edit, don't revert it automatically. Go to the case page and propose your change to the edit or say "Hey, that looks good. Let's move on".

We'll move through the article like this, and once you guys agree on it, then we'll cut and paste it back into the Danzig article and have this taken care of in no time. Thanks for your time. CQJ 19:26, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Discussion of Sandbox edits
Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-08-16 Glenn Danzig/Archive

This section was archived as of 16:35, 22 August 2006 (UTC) by CQJ.

Some minor things: Don't call him Glenn, call him Danzig. Calling him Glenn is a major no-no. As to the section, you guys can do what you want with the article. Anything that got axed was just accidental, not a suggestion on my part. I just created a sandbox and cleaned up to a version with what I saw was pretty neutral material. Nothing really requires my approval, I'm just playing referee here :-). If you guys are ready to take this live and work on it at the main article page, we can do that.  Let me know. CQJ 16:35, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * 1) No more comments from me, I'm happy as it is, just bring back the discography and wrap it up. Thank you G.g. for tolerant and creative work, thank you CQJ for your patient mediation :) Enzigel 20:04, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Agree. Article ready to go live with inclusion of all the other sub-categories. Many thanks to Enzigel and CQJ. Best wishes in your endeavors. G.g. 02:09, 23 August 2006 (UTC).


 * And a big thank you to Enzigel and G.g. for your hard work and diligence in resolving the issue. I'll close the case after contacting the protecting administrator to unlock the page, and transferring the contents of /sandbox to Glenn Danzig. Have a good one! CQJ 14:12, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Compromise offers
This section is for listing and discussing compromise offers.

We have two sections/versions in dispute as to Danzig's singing style:
 * As a singer, he is best-known for his distinctive vocals and his crooning singing style, often compared to Elvis Presley, Roy Orbison, and Jim Morrison. in the mainline text, and
 * His vocal style is reminiscent of Elvis Presley, Jim Morrison and Howling Wolf. in the trivia section.
 * and the two sections were modified to say As a singer, he is best-known for his distinctive vocals and his crooning style reminiscent of Elvis Presley, Jim Morrison and Howlin' Wolf, that earned him a nickname "Evil Elvis". in the mainline text.

I think for the most part, the third one is acceptable. G.g, what do you think? CQJ 18:34, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The only problem with the 3rd one is that it doesn't explain why he's called EVIL in evil elvis, and his singing resembles all three is not the reason he is called evil elvis. However, I think Enzigel putting the evil elvis part alongside the description of his vocal style was good thinking. It just needs more work. The whole "evil elvis" tag needs its own paragraph because it will need further explaining about his reputation, controversy, flirtations with satanic imagery, otherwise it makes no sense. One thing at a time, but, if there's going to be a mention at all of "evil elvis" then there's got to be an explanation about the whole EVIL part, where it comes from, etc. So, my suggestion is this........1) "His vocal style is reminscent of Elvis Presley, Jim Morrison, and Howlin Wolf" to be placed next below where G.g. edit #1 finished with mentioning Verotik. So that, when enzigel next refers to his authoring, he can put that next under in paragraph sequence......2) Either remove the whole Evil Elvis mention, as triviality, from the article, or it to be included as part of introducing a brief comment about his gothic, occult, satanic imagery and lyrics. G.g. 23:59, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay. Enzigel, why don't you crank on something like what G.g. suggests and we'll take a look at that, wrap this section up and move on to the next one. By the way, you guys are doing a great job working together on this thus far.CQJ 01:03, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Well my proposition is to just add author line. So if you approve general context of a singing part, I'll add my proposition for author line, and when the content is all there agreed upon, we'll discuss where to move stuff to achieve best quality of the whole paragraph. Enzigel 09:05, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Following on from Enzigel's proposal, G.g. edit #2 aims to fullfil the whole compromize. 1) Keeping "As a singer" because "As a writer" is next commented on. 2) Re-organizing the whole opening summary paragraphs to better flow and be mentioned more cohesively. I feel my latest edit fullfils the compromizes between Enzigel and I, as well as achieving a ready-to-go-live organization of the whole opening few paragraphs. Shall we move on to the next section? Enzigel, you begin your next edit in the "Early Career" section with approval from CQJ. G.g. 18:08, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * As for the next section, I don't have much to say about it. One thing though CQJ. The data you left in is the unverifiable one. I don't know who originally entered this data into the article, I don't object content either. But personal data is actually attempt at objective filtering of info scraped from talks with Jerry Only and Bobby Steele, and is more agreement among collectors then a verifiable fact, as Glenn almost never talked about his personal life. That old line about him collecting comics, toys and skulls of dead cats and stuff is pretty solid though, as it was eyewitnessed by several magazine interviewers :) So, I'll leave you G.g. to propose edits on this one, as I have no problems with it.Enzigel 21:26, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay. Why don't you guys tell me what you'd like to work on next, after all, it's your article :-). CQJ 22:38, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * 1) Okay, well I don't have much to add to this section. I recommend though, that if you have more you could talk about about his early life, to write it in, as I feel the "early years" is pretty empty of information. Surely someone as well-versed as you about his life could find something else interesting or relevant to flesh out this "early years" a little more. Otherwise, move on to the next section and make an edit there, Enzigel. I also feel that the protected article had some interesting info worth including about his collecting of things, watching porn, horror, etc, perhaps even his running amok if it's verifiable. G.g. 23:10, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Discussion
No more reverts! Discuss your changes, then make the appropriate changes. From my experience, reverting only starts edit wars in an already tenuous situation. Comments on your additions/edits above. CQJ 18:22, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments by Enzigel

 * Well as I said, original reason for mediation has been resolved. Seems the G.g. doesn't like reading policies, and does so just after a couple of hours of verbal dispute. In the end after reading them, he agreed not to include unverified negative data about living person, and this is the stuff I've been asking you to help me with. All other problems later on come from his wounded ego, much in a way "If I can't include negative data without good source - you won't get to include positive even with source". It started turning into revert wars with him editing out any info that is or might sound positive about person in question. In brief - I stopped myself from trying to edit article at 3rd revert, reported him, and I am waiting for the result. Don't know if you should tire yourself with this, after he reads 3RR policy he'll go and break another one. He already bashed on article with "cite needed" flood, can't wait to see what's next. :) Enzigel 16:10, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Assume good faith. Finger-pointing won't get us anywhere, so let's just start anew and get this article fixed. CQJ 18:53, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


 * At the time (before your call and "standards for mediation" signing may I add) it was as objective as I could get :) I'm recharged with positive energy, thanks to you, so let's do it :)Enzigel 21:21, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments by G.g.

 * My contributions before the revert war always had grammar/semantic fixes, added info, provided sources, re-wrote sections better, re-organized. I'm not a revert vandal by habit.
 * CQJ, you validated your judgment based on WP:BOLD and WP:IAR. My position/edit on the Glenn Danzig article is based on the same principles. A key clause or theme running thru many policies is the word neutrality.
 * CQJ, you cite policies like WP:OR or WP:V. A careful read thru shows them to be interpretable or flexible. I am under a 500 word count, I don't have the space to cite all the relevant lines within them that support arguments of mine as well as yours or Enzigel's. For instance, citing 138, an official Misfits database, for references to legal disputes with Glenn Danzig are valid and reliable.
 * Sourcing opinions of journalists writing for reputable newspapers is not necessarily valid. There are many such journalists who speak too glowingly of Glenn, and many such journalists who are disparaging of him. Both reputable journalists writing for reputable newspapers. The use of either as sources should be avoided and not pass the test.
 * CQJ, you mentioned encylopedias are not journalistic efforts, but are the collaboration of opposing fans opinions. Yet, thruout Wiki policies is the emphasis on neutrality, research, reliable sources, regular citations, etc. All those are true journalism. The perfect example is Wiki's esteem on Featured Artcicles which excel in true journalistic qualities.
 * The problem/confusion is that an article itself is actually journalistic, seeks neutrality, BUT the sources within can be acceptable as the mere opinions of journalists from newspapers susceptible to fanboyism (re: fanzine).
 * I do not believe Enzigel is capable of sincere mediation when a) in the Mediation Cabal he immediately breaks the WP:NPA and WPA:CIVIL in his opening Comments, b) he believes there should be no need for any citations at all, c) he lies about 3RR....he did 4 yet insists he only did 2, d) he has no intention to compromize.
 * This revert problem has happened before between Enzigel and other contributors. Glenn Danzig is a too touchy topic.
 * I urge that this mediation cease, and that the full matter be taken straight to Wiki Admin. Let them maintain the protection block and seek to re-write it themselves to achieve Featured Article status so that it can not be tampered with again and find another revert war. G.g. 14:19, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

MedCab response
Point by point;
 * I don't think your grammar fixes are disputed here, G.g. That's not a concern.
 * My statements as to WP:BOLD, WP:IAR speak to the act of locking the article and summarily archiving the talk page, not content.
 * I quoted WP:OR and WP:V based upon a quick look at the links provided at the bottom of the page. I have not reviewed the quoted material from there as of now, that's a "on the face" call.
 * I'm not sure on your interpretation of WP:RS. You seek to dismiss newspapers, et. al, as unacceptable sources as they are biased, so on, so forth.  What, then, do you propose using?
 * Journalism vs. research - Wikipedia is research into a given subject. It's an encyclopedia, not  The New York Times, and that's why we have the policy set that we do.
 * I find it interesting that you use the term "fanboyism". You must think there's a really NPOV problem with this article, eh? If that's the case, why wasn't there an NPOV tag in it?
 * As to your statement that Enzigel broke WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL in opening this case, I don't find any credibility to that at all. Enzigel simply said that he'd like someone with a good handle on policy to take a look at this article.  I'm not touching the 3RR statement with a ten-foot pole, because you were both fueling that little war, hence why the article is protected.
 * I would think that everyone's been in an edit war at one point in time in their life, again, not touching that with a ten foot pole.
 * If you feel that strongly about ending the mediation, that's fine. I'll gladly hand this over to an administrator and let them sort this out. However, that's not the outcome you want, considering the edit-warring and the comments you two left for each other on the talk page over a four hour period of time. I'd strongly encourage that you let this run its course, as the first question that any other administrator or dispute resolution process is going to ask is what you've done to solve the dispute already.

Basically, let's put aside whatever differences you two have had in the past, assume good faith, and fix this article so it can be unlocked. That's why the talk page was archived, and that's why the article was locked - so we can do that in an expedient manner. CQJ 18:50, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I seriously hope you will show some more patience CQJ and persist on the case, as clearing up the rules and policies might be the best way out of lock. Thanks for taking the time to read through talk page, even if shear amount of data made you put me in the same category as G.g. :) Just showing your will to read all that, makes you very welcome mediator in my eyes. I hope you'll stay, and if not, thanks for your input anyway.Enzigel 19:25, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Reply to Medcab Respons

 * I didn't mean Enzigel broke WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL in starting this mediation, I meant in his "Comments by Enzigel" section at the foot of this page and other little personal ribbings left in conversation to you. But never mind, I am happy to let bygones be bygones and work with the both of you in resolving this case.
 * I don't think all newspapers et al are unacceptable. I just think a certain amount of discretion or discrimination is required in sourcing them. In the media, there are always overly pro or overly anti journalists who write about any given subject...for instance, the US Govt, George Bush, the Iraq War, etc. There are many journalists working for reputable Rock magazines or reviewers in newspapers who either like or don't like Danzig. If one wanted to, they could flood this article with only all the fanboyistic references sourced, or only all the negative references sourced. Therefore, the problem/confusion is - either both should be allowed in and used as sources in trying to achieve a neutral article that actually discusses Glenn Danzig including his controversies etc....or....efforts should be made to remove sensationalistic pro and anti sources/references in trying to achieve that neutrality. Problem with the first is that some people cannot allow controversies surrounding Glenn to be discussed maturely, resulting in reverts and edit wars. Problem with the second is that the article ends up limp and tasteless, no fleshing out of the subject matter. Therefore...this is the gist of my whole argument, and seeking sincere mediator and admin help in resolving this matter is good as long as sincerity is involved by the disputants. G.g. 08:40, 20 August 2006 (UTC)