Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-08-30 Schadenfreude

Mediation Case: Schadenfreude
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: Davidkevin 21:04, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Where is the issue taking place?
 * ...article schadenfreude


 * Who's involved?
 * ... Davidkevin and Mackan


 * What's going on?
 * ... The article existed for approx. 3.5 years with various editors slowly adding to and modifying it. Not having previously edited the article, Mackan came in and appears to have abruptly decided that much of the "use in popular culture" section offended him in some way and has been vandalizing the article, repeatedly removing a number of appropriate citations.  He has been multiply warned about vandalism on his User Talk page.  His response is ad hominem attacks, uncivility, and possibly cronyism to gain the appearance of support for his vandalism -- I have no evidence one way or the other in that regard, just a suspicion.  I would have to see whether any of his "supporters" are actually in the article edit record and I haven't gotten around to that yet.


 * I will be going through the edit record presently, and if wrong will delete this portion of my comment.


 * ''What would you like to change about that?
 * ... I would like the vandalism to cease.


 * Would you prefer we work discreetly? If so, how can we reach you?
 * ... I'm not sure that discretion is possible.

Mediator response
I started mediation on this case quite some time ago, but Davidkevin went out on illness and the case seemed to dissolve. There does not seem to be any further interest in the issue, so I am closing the case. LawrenceTrevallion 14:25, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

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



Discussion
I don't know if this is where I should post my comment... but I'd like to start off saying this entire mediation is ridiculous. It will be obvious to anybody having a look at my talk page and the Schadenfreude talk page that the problem is Davidkevin and Davidkevin alone. He has a great emotional attachment to the article and refuses to acknowledge WP:OWN. "You agreed to allow others to modify your work here. So let them". He claims that only somebody who has prevoiusly edited the article is allowed to edit it now and said on the talk page "...unless there is an overwhelming editorial show of support from editors who have worked on this article in the past against my doing so, I will be putting back material I think you've inappropriately deleted...", completely at odds with Wikipedia rules.

Also, Davidkevin suggests I've "been multiply warned about vandalism on his User Talk page". The sole "warner" is User:Davidkevin, even after I explained to him that anybody who read WP:Vandalism would understand what I'm doing is obviously not vandalism, which is quite frustrating. Davidkevin has also retorted to personal attacks, such as "Pseudo-physician, heal thyself." . Also, the numerous time he has been referring to me, an honest contributor, as a vandal, and also putting "vandalism warnings" on my page, even after I told him the definition of the word, has not exactly been very civil. I, on the other hand has neither been uncivil nor have I committed any personal attacks, and I beg Davidkevin to provide a link to anything he suggests was uncivil on my behalf.

Also, please take a look at the Schadenfreude article and realise that the only thing I've been deleting from the article is a list of every tv-show where the word ever was uttered... Which is obviously not what a Wikipedia article is supposed to look like! Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, Wikipedia:Guide_to_writing_better_articles, and Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style.

Also, suggesting I'm guilty of "possibly cronyism to gain the appearance of support for his vandalism", is completely absurd, and anybody having a look at my talk page will realise I'm not very social as a Wikipedia user and I have no "WikiFriends" or anyone similiar whom I'd ever call for support. A quick look at previous edits conflicts I've been involved in would confirm that the people commenting on the Schadenfreude conflict (or rather, the Davidkevin conflict) have probably never had anything to say in them.

The only problem in this "mediation" is User:Davidkevin's extreme unwillingness to co-operate on a ridiculously small "conflict", entirely based on his poor understandings of Wikipedia principles (especially WP:OWN). His stubborness, personal attack(s), uncivility and constant accusations of vandalism are all to the detriment of the article in question. I suggest Davidkevin is blocked for at least a week to give him time to cool down, and also that somebody higher up explains to him in detail what he's doing wroing, because he won't listen to anything I say. Mackan 07:27, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Response from Davidkevin
Mackan made the statement that I was "emotionally attached" to the article at the very beginning of our disagreement. He has shown no evidence that I have such (because I don't); lacking this evidence, I can only presume that perhaps he's had some success with this as an intimidation tactic in other edit conflicts. I stated both on his talk page and on the article talk page that my concern is the quality of the article, which I see as diminished by the wholesale deletions Maclan makes. I have never made the ridiculous statement "that only somebody who has prevoiusly [sic] edited the article is allowed to edit it now," as a check of the edit records will show. What Maclan sees as a "personal attack" ("Pseudo-physician, heal thyself..."), I see as mild sarcasm over his throwing WP:OWN in my face while himself acting in an ownership mode. I could just as easily have made a reference to pots and kettles and the color of such. There was no "attack" there, just an expression of mild annoyance at perceived hypocrisy. I never called him a vandal, as he states, I cited what I believe to have been acts of vandalism. I never called him a name, I objected to what I see as inappropriate actions. He said above that I want the article to include "a list of every tv-show where the word ever was uttered...", which is clearly not so. I have agreed with him about deleting mere mentions of the word which had no useful context, and have not reverted those deletions. As I stated on the article talk page, "If someone just uses the word without context (as in the 'schadenfreude ray gun' or as the name of the Chicago comedy troupe, then I agree that including an entry on such as that is crufty excess. However, if the word is used in an illuminating fashion, as in the Simpsons reference, or the Sarah Silverman quotation, then it seems to me that including a pop-culture reference is appropriate.  The rule I use in making such a determination is if such a reference helps make the meaning and use of the word more clear, then it's appropriate to mention in this section."

His suggestion that I be blocked for a week is sourly amusing in that I have requested mediation so that this could possibly be solved without my having to ask an administrator to block him. His suggestion is exactly the sort of incivility of which I was speaking. I look forward to hearing from a volunteer mediator so that we can work toward something resembling consensus. Davidkevin 12:27, 1 September 2006 (UTC)