Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-01-23 Killed in Action

Mediation Case: Killed in Action
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: John Wallace Rich 16:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Where is the issue taking place?
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Killed_in_action


 * Who's involved?
 * Ttiotsw


 * What's going on?
 * Ttiotsw user does not substantiate his or her claims and violates Wikipedia policy on WP:OR. The user also has worse command of English style and punctuation, at least on the talk page where we have a misunderstanding or dispute.  He has made comments before making changes, but said user seems to insist on removing a verified word from the article, improperly cites references, etc.


 * ''What would you like to change about that?
 * I guess it's unclear, but Ttiotsw's provides awkward entries on the talk page for the article on "killed in action." I'd say they're also inappropriate, overly critical, vague, and slippery slopes as well.  I don't want to have to spend too much time on it.  I had work to do yesterday and had to focus too much on the misunderstanding or dispute with Ttiotsw.


 * UPDATE 1/25
 * Now it seems we have a dispute over the verified term "homicide" in describing "killed in action" (KIA).  Ttiotsw has not provided verification otherwise, and I don't see what I want about it.  I suppose others helping explain would help, but another issue, for me at least, involves whether an accident in combat would be KIA. Militaries, or society, would not formally describe a military accident outside of combat as KIA, though war, by definition, involves homicides because one side tries to beat the other by military force.  So far, the verification rests on a Nolo Press definition which appears on the first page of a Google searchfor a definition of the word "homicide."  Moreover, the KIA classification involves homicide in combat more than any other military casualty.  However, Ttiotsw seems stubborn, rather than the acronym the user has: "The Truth Is Out There Somewhere." John Wallace Rich 20:55, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Would you prefer we work discreetly? If so, how can we reach you?
 * I began discussing the involvement of the Mediation Cabal on the talk page after Ttiotsw's posts threatened to call in the WP:THIRD on January 22, so you don't have to work discreetly.  Ttiotsw's entries now talk about surprise that I have requested help.

Mediator response
I'd say bickering about the use of the word "homocide" is the least of your problems. This article is possibly one of the worst I've ever seen. I would strongly suggest starting over from scratch. Sorry if that's not the answer you were looking for, but that's my honest opinion on the best way to proceed. Both you and Ttiotsw might benefit from reading WP:V, WP:OR, and WP:MoS. Let me know if I can be of further assistance. Kaldari 01:52, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Can I close this case? --Ideogram 12:44, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Kaldari does not even spell "homicide" correctly, while deleting 95% of an article in under 10 minutes with 4 revisions. The article already received "Start Class" on the quality scale:


 * Kaldari has removed valid military history information from the entry, as well as citations which he claims do not exist. I would argue the user vandalized the page, removing verified information from a "Start Class" article without even discussion, most of the article, and Kaldari doesn't even spell the word "homicide" correctly.  The user should use much more care or stay out!  Doesn't Kaldari realize people actually get killed in war?  It's not something funny!  Kaldari also made more than three edits in less than 10 minutes.  The page needs contributions, not joking or vandalism.  John Wallace Rich 16:43, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll take that as a no. --Ideogram 17:25, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

The other party you named has removed himself from the case. If there is another dispute here you want mediated you will have to identify the involved parties and get them to agree to informal mediation. If you cannot do that, I will close the case. --Ideogram 20:19, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Kaldari now vandalizes the article, Killed In Action, and Ttiotsw does here; it's my request, and he's made changes, at least one major one in here. They have seemed to think it a joke.  We may, indeed, have to move onto more formal mediation.  I have not requested page protection yet because the article could use work, but the changes so far remove work.  The changes Kaldari has made, deletions of major portions of the article with awkward and inappropriate comments, make me numb, defensive, and distressed if anything.  Ttiotsw has frustrated me, but slavery's also illegal according to any constitution-like document I can think of in English (even Singapore).  Moreover, the Wikimedia Foundation's based in the U.S.A according to GuideStar.  What other steps would you suggest? John Wallace Rich 22:42, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Please slow down. Kaldari is not vandalizing the article. No one thinks this is a joke.

You are new to Wikipedia. There are some rules and customs we follow around here that you need to learn. Kaldari will try to explain them to you but you have to be patient. --Ideogram 22:56, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


 * If you're saying I'm "new" to Wikipedia, Ideogram, you again show inaccurate citation of references. It looks to me like I registerd my username at least six months before you registerd yours! John Wallace Rich 01:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The article has been radically changed to hopefully be more acceptable to the parties involved. I have added a bit of references and gotten rid of some of the unencyclopedic links and notes. Is the current page acceptable to all parties to work off of now? If so, I'll close the case. Cowman109 Talk 23:15, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

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



Discussion

 * The article has been rewritten. I'm happy. Not happy about the presentation of this mediation case but for this I'll use WP:DGAF and move on. Ttiotsw 07:38, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Note to any passing mediator. I (Ttiotsw) am NOT involved with this mediation case. I have tried to remove my name above but the other party has reverted and has kept my name in the "Who's involved?" list. I have no problems with the mediator results so far and the 3rd opinion response (which I raised) to date. Note that this does not mean that what has been said about me above is a true record, just that the mediator response was valid. A rather asymmetrical mediation case I would say. Ttiotsw 02:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I was the one who requested mediation, and so far I don't like it. It makes me defensive about something important.  Wikipedia has some major flaws in editing procedure, and articles can devolve at least as easy as evolve.  I hope to be able to branch out somewhat, but other articles I've begun, such as GuideStar, seem to do fine without the attack.  We need better "mediation." John Wallace Rich 06:22, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Be bold, branch out. No one is attacking. There is nothing much wrong with GuideStar because there is nothing wrong with it (AFAIKS). There was/is stuff wrong with KIA because it just didn't read right and I gave my reasons. I've worked on about 150 or more different articles in little ways (some bigger e.g. Victor J. Stenger I created which others have gone over). I've had articles I have worked on deleted via WP:AfD and I've helped articles stop being deleted via WP:AfD. I'm certainly no angel but you have to trust us all when we say we are not attacking and we're not vandalising and that the system works. I'll clue you in on how someone who wanted to attack what you write does: They follow your contribs, they tag relevant articles with POV, tag article with merge to say some War casualties article, and if that doesn't work do a WP:AfD and suggest merge, remove your KIA support group links as a non-notable WP:EL or claiming SPAM links, raise a WP:RfC on you and spin your WP:OWN on the article for all its worth, do minor edits with style changes staying just within WP:3RR goading you to trip up on WP:NPA or WP:3RR if they can get others to support reverts, pushing for formal mediation or arbitration so that you risk being banned....the list goes on. I've seen most of the above. *That* is what an attack would look like. You won't find me doing that here on this article.
 * On the matter of what is vandalism here are examples that I have reverted (remember I too do not get paid to do this, it is just how I am in Wikipedia),


 * Nonsense claim -
 * Suspect dates -
 * Nonsense text -
 * User talk vandalism -
 * Profanity -
 * Article talk vandalism by blocked user -
 * IP Blatant vandalism -
 * BIO page vandalism -
 * Link spamming -

...list goes on and on. Truthfully can you see no difference between what those other editors have added in the examples I have provided and how we've gone about arriving at a consensus for KIA or about how an "attack" would form (using the clues I've mentioned) and how the dispute resolution process has flowed to date ? Ttiotsw 21:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

May I remove the Military History WikiProject template?
Please... It seems to no longer be relevant. Am I wrong?--Trilotat (talk) 02:09, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I believe you're right. Removed it myself. 69.165.196.103 (talk) 15:44, 3 March 2017 (UTC)