Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-03-24 Attribution

Request Information
WP:ATT should have Disputedpolicy on it. It is the perfect example of what that template is for. The only objections to it are factually incorrect as to the purpose and meaning of the template. Main points of discussion: Wikipedia talk:Attribution (very recent), Wikipedia talk:Attribution (yesterday), Wikipedia talk:Attribution (2 days ago). The issues have been raised at WP:RFPP, WP:RFC/POLICIES, WP:VPP, WP:AN and WP:GMN, in that order, without any effective response. For that reason, because I've been subjected to a blatant personal attack by one of the parties, and because another party says they are finding it harder and harder to continue to assume good faith about some of the parties, I'm seeking this semi-formal level of mediation at this stage. &mdash; SMcCandlish &#91;talk&#93; &#91;contrib&#93; ツ 21:01, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Who are the involved parties?
PRO: SMcCandlish (initial proponent), Henrygb (re-proponent), Majorly (WP:RFPP admin who added the tag in response to well-explained editprotected request at RFPP; not involved in any way in the WP:ATT debates), Coppertwig (general supporter), Rednblu (general supporter);

CON: Jossi (reverter of tag, opposes proposal on grounds that don't match the facts), SlimVirgin (opposed original proposal on same grounds, but has not commented since, so may not oppose any longer), David Levy (opposed re-proposal on same grounds, but may not have seen refutation at that time, so may not oppose any longer clarified that he still does oppose).

What's going on?
A small handful of parties (Jossi, SlimVirgin, Crum375 and Blueboar) effectively have almost total control over WP:ATT and related pages WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NOR, and have imposed a full-protection on all of them without consensus (and in the cases of RS, V and NOR, without justification under WP:PROT). Admin Centrx was the first to note the lack of consensus and this has been echoed by many others at the links already provided, and at Wikipedia talk:Attribution and Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources, with further problems with it being pointed out at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability and Wikipedia talk:No original research. This protection has been used not to prevent any content changes, as was stated, but to permit Jossi and SlimVirgin (intentionally or unintentionally; I presume the latter) to make POV edits in an admin-only editing evironment, to very near the point of wheelwarring (i.e. with Majorly), with the result (if not intention) of hiding the fact that there is a major ongoing dispute about WP:ATT's purpose, form, process and continued existence as a policy. The protection situation and its fallout is a larger issue than this request for mediation intends to address, which is focused solely on the use of the protection to prevent application of the proper policy header template, which is clearly Disputedpolicy not Policy.


 * Since my name has been mentioned, I feel I need to comment. I hardly have "almost total control" over these pages.  I am not an Admin, nor even a major contributor to these pages.  All I have done is strongly request that the pages be protected while a major policy process (one requested by Jimbo Wales) takes place.  Blueboar 21:33, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Also speaking as someone with allegedly "total control," I no longer even know what's going on with these pages, and today I learn we've reached the dizzy new heights of actually having a poll about the poll. I'd prefer not to be associated with it, much less in control, thank you. :-) SlimVirgin (talk) 02:04, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I would definitely concede that point. The broad community input that Jimbo asked for is happening, and it's pretty much impossible to unilaterally control anything under those circumstances.  I was speaking of the situation before all that broad community input, which even included completely bogus administrative threats against users for "disruption" that didn't disrupt anything, among other problems. &mdash;  SMcCandlish &#91;talk&#93; &#91;contrib&#93; ツ 22:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * That request has no consensus, which has been pointed out by at least 6 parties (which proves it has no consensus). You also reverted against unanimous consensus at WP:RS immediately before crying out for the pages to be locked.  I didn't say that you have almost total control, I said that the bloc consisting of you and three admins has almost total control; I should have qualified that your role is simply backing the admins in the control they are exerting (and that you appear to be the sole party in all of WP:ATT talk in support of this level of control on their part); sorry for that lack of clarity.  I reiterate as I have at every point since this dispute started, that I alleged no bad faith on anyone's parts, only a level of WP:PANIC.  But this is probably all moot, since the mediation was rejected by some of the key  participants.  &lt;shrug&gt;  &mdash;  SMcCandlish &#91;talk&#93; &#91;contrib&#93; ツ 21:54, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Having a page locked and having a major policy process are mutually exclusive on a consensus based wiki. :-/ So we need to do some mediation so as to get the page unlocked as quickly as possible. --Kim Bruning 06:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The "WP:ATT Cabal" as I jokingly refer to them have refused mediation. I escalated the matter to WP:AN, and some progress is being made.  I think everyone is OK with the fused merge/prot template on WP:ATT, and similar templates are being developed and discussed at WP:V and WP:NOR.  WP:RS was unprotected, and has a merge template now, but one party's not happy with its wording, so it will probably be resolved along with V and NOR with a similar custom template.  There are many, many other issues going on involving ownership, incivility, borderline personal attacks, tendentiousness, harassment/badgering, attempts to skew the poll, and what appear to be threats to editwar against the inclusion in the poll of the anti-ATT camp's statement of issues (when it is finished and moved out of userspace), and various incidences of disruption (as actually defined at WP:DE, not as some these parties constantly abuse the term to mean "I don't agree with you").  But I don't think these are matters for this MedCab case, probably (and since mediation can't be required, I kind of don't see how they could be, though I greatly appreciate your concern.)  Simply weighing in (as editors/admins, not as MedCab) on some of the nastiness that has been going on against people the WP:ATT proponents don't agree with at Wikipedia talk:Attribution, Wikipedia talk:Attribution/Poll and Wikipedia talk:Attribution/Community discussion might help; key names to look for in that context are Jossi, SlimVirgin and Jayjg, and see especially the "Keep it simple" thread on the Poll's talk page.  Hopefully this stuff will just iron itself out, but enough parties are ticked off I would not be surprised if RfCs and an ArbCom case or two come out of this mess when (if not before) it is over. &mdash;  SMcCandlish &#91;talk&#93; &#91;contrib&#93; ツ 06:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

What would you like to change about that?

 * 1) For all parties to acknowledge the meaning of Disputedpolicy and understand that it applies here
 * 2) For the Disputedpolicy template to be restored to WP:ATT
 * 3) Agreement by all parties that the over-control behavior will cease - after Disputedpolicy is restored, no edits of any kind will be made until the protection is lifted unless pursuant to an editprotected request that gains clear consensus to proceed
 * 4) Agreement that personal attacks will cease; engaging in good faith as instructed by WP:DISPUTE in Wikipedia's defined dispute resolution processes is not "disruptive".

Mediator response
Parties refused mediation. Closing case.