Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-03-07 Joie de Vivre

Mediation Case: 2007-03-07 Joie de Vivre
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: Iamcuriousblue 00:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Where is the issue taking place?
 * User talk:Iamcuriousblue, Lesbianism in erotica, Monique Alexander, Sunrise Adams, Girl-girl, other pages


 * Who's involved?
 * User:Iamcuriousblue, User:Joie de Vivre


 * What's going on?
 * User:Joie de Vivre made changes to Lesbianism in erotica that I felt were inappropriate (as well as renaming the page) (see Talk:Lesbianism in erotica for details). Looking at JdV's page, I found that this was part of a larger campaign, '"Addressing racism and sexism" and then checked JdV's user contributions to see if similar inappropriate edits had been made to several other pages porn-related topics. I reverted several of these. Soon after, I begain receiving irate and abusive messages on my talk page. JdV then set about to revert ever disputed page except Lesbianism in erotica. I am very concered that


 * 1) That this user has some very odd views on what constitutes racist, sexist, biphobic, or otherwise biased language. When this user fails to establish consensus about making such changes in the language of one article, he or she simply moves onto another article and makes the same disputed edits there.


 * 2) That this user shows a great deal of hostility when challenged, using threatening language and engaging in retaliatory actions (which I feel he or she is engaging in toward me at the moment).


 * ''What would you like to change about that?
 * I would like the retaliatory actions against me to end. Also, I would like other sets of eyes on the articles that User:Joie de Vivre and I are disputing. Perhaps her edits are appropriate and mine are wrong, but it would be nice to have other people look at these edits to see if they're apropriate or not.


 * Would you prefer we work discreetly? If so, how can we reach you?
 * I prefer to air disputes openly. I can be reached at User talk:Iamcuriousblue.

Mediator response
OK, I'll take this case. The first thing I'm going to do is call for a 'cool down' session, and ask both parties to attempt to look at this entire situation with fresh, calm, eyes. I'd like both parties to send a statement of what they believe is going on to me by e-mail (using the link on my talk page). I will then post both statements here (this insures that neither statement will attempt to be a 'response' to the other). And see if I can't hash out a compromise. Does this suit both parties? --CaveatLectorTalk 23:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Since when am I a "her"? People love picking pronouns for me.
 * I don't understand what exactly is being mediated here. The dispute as to where Girl-girl ought to redirect reached an amicable consensus among many users.  I haven't heard anything on the Talk pages of the other articles as to a problem.  I feel like this is a vague mishmash of complaints and that all of them could be addressed at each article's Talk page.  I wouldn't even know what to write in an email other than "this person doesn't seem to like me".  Joie de Vivre 23:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Now that I look at the date for the request, this request is a bit old (almost a month). It seems it might have been in response to comments you left on her talk page.  So are you saying that you two have already reached a compromise on these issues? CaveatLectorTalk 23:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * A comprimise over girl-girl was reached. On the other issues, JdV hasn't reverted any of my edits recently, so we haven't been in conflict. I still feel the earlier actions of this editor were extremely uncivil (see the comments on my talk page) and often retaliatory, but the problems seem to have let up for the time being. Iamcuriousblue 04:02, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

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



Discussion

 * I'm not a mediator but I have unsolicited opinion to offer. The Girl-girl redirect issue is resolved, but the conflict is not. These editors share some categorical specialties (notably in adult entertainment articles), and will collide in the future. At this time, they are simply (and sensibly) avoiding each other.


 * Both User talk:Iamcuriousblue and User:Joie de Vivre are good editors making valuable contributions to Wikipedia &mdash; it would be a shame to lose either of them. Both have very strong POV's, which is probably a good thing. However, both get prickly when confronted with opposing points of view, tending to assume bad motives in their perceived opponents.


 * Both editors have (in other interactions) worked in cooperation with other POV's, but for this to occur may require other editors to make the good faith outreach. JdV and curiousblue may (at this time) lack the tools to do this for each other. Even when they choose to use Wikipedia DR process, it seems like the (main?) intent is to bludgeon the other side.


 * During the somewhat troubled RfC, both parties compromised, so I see a lot of potential to get past this.


 * My ideal approach for these two &mdash; and this may be a fantasy &mdash; would be to have them collaborate on a controversial project as an exercise in the religious application of assuming good faith, neutral POV, civility, seeking consensus, avoiding personal attack, and probably a few other principles. By "religious" I mean keep doing it even when the other party seems to not be doing it; otherwise either party could scuttle the detente.


 * Obviously, both parties would have to be strongly interested in getting better at this stuff.


 * It would help to have a more experienced editor advising but not moderating &mdash; the accomplishment would belong to the parties involved, not to some sponsor. I'd offer to do it, but I'm no saint myself, and anyway I think both parties have reasons to question my neutrality. / edgarde 17:50, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I think this is a really good idea. It is obvious that both these parties are valuable editors to Wikipedia, and it would be a shame to lose either of them.  They will have to decide if this suggestion appeals to them.  I will offer myself to be the 'advising' editor in this case if they wish.  For now, though, I'll close the case. CaveatLectorTalk 20:53, 31 March 2007 (UTC)