Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-04-14 Anti-Americanism

Who are the involved parties?
Life.temp (me), Igorberger, Equazcion, Marksell

What's going on?
Disagreement over what the article is about, what the term means, whether it is an interpretation to call something anti-American, whether the encyclopedia can call people anti-American who don't call themselves that, whether the term usually denote prejudice, whether articles that don't say they are peer-reviewed should be called peer-reviewed, and so on.

In addition, Igorberger is being extremely difficult. He is now initiating an edit war that involves reverting all changes in the last week or so, wiping out dozens of edits. He is making accusatory and dismissive comments about other editors (mostly me), and not addressing reasons given for edits.

What would you like to change about that?
There are some Wikipedia policies that apply. It is not neutral to apply labels to people they don't accept for themselves. This is particularly true when the label has a negative connotation, such as anti-American. The article should not call people anti-American.

Banning Igor from the topic would smooth things out greatly (others share his views, so it wouldn't unbalance the process).
 * Note Igor has been community banned indefinitely as a result a full and frank discussion at a recent ANI thread. He is the process of being further assessed at length by a mentor and the community.  Further comments regarding a request for mediation between the sincere editors may still be useful.-- VS  talk 04:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Update: Igor turns out to be a hobbyist troll; see. But the article still needs mediation between the sincere editors. Life.temp (talk) 15:24, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Discussion
Just a note, but this article has been plaged by sockpuppets of User:Bsharvy. Could this Igor person be another? -mattbuck (Talk) 22:12, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Who knows? Igor accused me of being a sockpuppet of bsharvy. But he's a self-declared troll, so his actions don't show true intent. Life.temp (talk) 22:19, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It seems far more likely that Life.temp is the sockpuppet. It might be better if neither were on the article. Marskell (talk) 06:50, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * What "might be better" is if you addressed the reasons behind the disagreements over content, instead of trying to use a frivolous SSP case with no diffs and no examples of disruption to avoid those disagreements. Igor Berger maintains a hitlist of Wikipieda editors: . On that list is Equazcion, with whom you have semi-warred over content in this exact same article. Do you care more about getting your way in a content dispute, or about an editor who takes your side but publicly mocks Wikipedia with off-wiki accounts of his trolling and editor "buzzkill"? Life.temp (talk) 09:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Life.temp is almost certainly Bsharvy. His attempts to wreck the anti-Americianism article follows exactly the same pattern as Bsharvy. Supposedly Life-temp is a new user of the wikipedia but within a day he had mastered all wikipedia rules and procedures and showed himself a dab hand at bringing complaints procedures like this one. Bsharvy also used the wikipedia complaints system maliciously against the other editors at Anti-Americanism. Bsharvy edited from Seoul, Korea and I have no doubt that Life.temp is editing from the same place. Perhaps Life.temp will volunteer here the information as to where he is editing from and whether he is using the very same computer as Bsharvy in Seoul, Korea. Life.temp - are you Bsharvy? Colin4C (talk) 15:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Requests for checkuser. I haven't added one myself but suggest it. If Lif.temp has nothing to hide then nothing to worry about. Marskell (talk) 17:35, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * To clarify: Life.temp first started editing on 23 March, just five days after we had seen the last of Bsharvy's latest sockpuppet: "Bshanvy". Since 23 March (three weeks ago) Life-temp has miraculously acquired a total mastery of all wikipedia procedures, has exactly the same way of arguing as Bsharvy and similarly devotes himself to deleting large chucks from the Anti-Americanism article and launching disciplinary procedures against editors there he doesn't like. I have asked him over and over again whether he is editing from Seoul, Korea, but he refuses to answer. Why the mystery, unless he has something to conceal? If anyone wants to know, I am editing from Southsea, Portsmouth in the UK. No mystery. Where are you editing from Life.temp? Colin4C (talk) 18:22, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * There is a page for editors to link themselves to Igor's SSP. This isn't it. These two editors are spamming everything I do with their analysis. The one place they have not posted any SSP comment is the page that requests it. This page is an attempt to use the dispute resolution procedures to resolve a content dispute. If you are interested in resolving the disagreement about content, please make an effort. Thanks. Life.temp (talk) 18:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes or no? Colin4C (talk) 08:53, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Colin4C you are bordering on unacceptable harassment here - put simply this is not the place for bleating on about sock puppetry - take it to the correct page as Marskell above suggests. For this page deal with the issues as stated above or if you can't or don't want to do that then please clear off for the time being.-- VS  talk 09:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The 'issues' have been raised by an obvious sock-puppet of Bsharvy as part of a long standing campaign of disruption he has been waging on the Anti-Americanism pages for months now. I am a regular decent constructive editor on the wikipedia - why are you being so rude to me and not even allowing me free speech? It is Bsharvy who is doing the harrassing on this page not me. He is using this page as a smoke screen. Take a look at what has been happening at Anti-Americanism for the past four months and you will see the pattern of disruptive editing by Bsharvy and his sockpuppets repeated over and over again ad nauseum. Colin4C (talk) 09:30, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Is Life.temp's request (above) that certain editors at Anti-Americanism be banned not classed as harassment? Vide his statement: "Banning Igor from the topic would smooth things out greatly". Will you strike that through as well? Or is it one of the 'issues'? I have never asked for anybody to be banned, just asked where they are editing from. Who then is the worse harasser? Life.temp or me? Colin4C (talk) 09:35, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Colin I am not trying to be rude to you - but which part of take your accusations about sock puppetry to the correct page - which at least two editors have now suggested - do you not understand? If Life.temp is a sock then find out once and for all at the correct page?-- VS talk 10:01, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * PS Do you note that at least one other editor above is wondering whether Igorberger is a sock puppet of Bsharvy? See my point - do we ban both Igor and Life.temp simply on the general belief by other editors that they may be a sock puppet?
 * Is Life.temp's statement "Banning Igor from the topic would smooth things out greatly" harassment or not? I have never asked for any editor to be banned and I am the one accused of harassment! Is there one rule for some editors and another rule for other editors on the wikipedia or are all editors equal? Are some editors allowed absolute liberty to abuse all they like at all times and the others have to shut up and be censored for the mildest of comments? That is just totally unfair bias. I have sweated blood trying to improve the wikipedia but it is I who get criticised rather than those doing their damndest to destroy it. Colin4C (talk) 10:32, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The answer is simple if you do not take it out of context Colin, Life.temp actually says Banning Igor from the topic would smooth things out greatly (others share his views, so it wouldn't unbalance the process). which is a request that he is entitled to make. It is not harassment and it is up to editors and administrators to judge the request and comment. Let me be even clearer - I do not express a view about Life.temp one way or another in relation the accusations you are making here about sock puppetry.  If he turns out to be a sock puppet then he should be and will be dealt with - what you need to do is not go on about it on this page. That request is not being unfair it is assuming good faith towards all editors until proven otherwise.-- VS  talk 11:01, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Attempt at Salvage
Life.temp (talk) 11:02, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Part of harrassment is repetition and magnitude. I made a one-sentence comment. Others have dedicated several paragraphs to the SSP topic. However, I apologize for suggesting that a topic-ban (I didn't suggest a general ban) would improve things. It was comment about behavior in a forum that is supposed to be about content. I now see it has snowballed and is undermining this attempt at dispute resolution.
 * The article has significant content issues. I think there is a cultural bias, because people from non-English-speaking countries are underrepresented in the English Wikipedia, yet the article labels Japensese, French and many Islamic countries as anti-American. If people from those countries were equally represented, there is no way there'd be a consensus about those labels.
 * There is always a neutrality issue when people are labelled in ways they would not accept for themselves.
 * I think none of the articles in the "Peer Reviewed" section are peer-reviewed.
 * What reasons have you to think so? Do you know or are you just guessing? Colin4C (talk) 17:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You are wrong anyway: here is proof that International Studies Quarterly is peer reviewed: http://www.isq.unt.edu/
 * Part of the debate over the term is that it has strong pejorative connotations and is often used as propaganda. The article itself says so. Then it goes on to apply the term to many different people and countries, essentially takeing the side that the term is not pejorative and not propaganda.
 * The definition of anti-Americanism includes "objection to...policy" which is so broad it includes everybody in the world at some point. It means President Bush is being anti-American when he objects to Death with Dignity laws. (Note, added this to the list later)
 * Many of these issues apply to all the anti-[nation] articles. I think not a single one of them is written by the people who are supposedly anti-[nation]. So I think a general policy discussion is in order. I proposed such a thing at the Village Pump Village_pump_%28policy%29 but it hasn't received much attention.


 * ''Note. I've moved the subsequent discussion about behavior, rather than article content, to User_talk:Colin4C. If anybody feels that is inappropriate, please move it back. Life.temp (talk) 21:49, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

''
 * Note. If you going to move that, please move everything else that does not deal with the article. There is no need for SSP or other irrelevent discussion on this page. This is about the article or about a hit list or SSP? It maybe even better to start fresh. Present you arguments about the article. Keep all references about editing behavior out of the discussion. If not, there cannot be rational logic with respect to anti-Americanism Igor Berger (talk) 22:03, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your Un-American blow against free speech Life.temp but in the "What's going on?" subsection which introduces the Mediation it says: "In addition, Igorberger is being extremely difficult. He is now initiating an edit war that involves reverting all changes in the last week or so, wiping out dozens of edits. He is making accusatory and dismissive comments about other editors (mostly me), and not addressing reasons given for edits." Are we allowed to comment on those assertions here or not? I submit that censorship of a right to reply here is Un-American and smacks of the Communist Thought Police. Colin4C (talk) 09:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * You should comment on Igor on Igor's Talk page. That's the only way he can respond, since he has been blocked indefinitely for subjecting dozens of editors to the behavior I described. This page is for discussing content disputes. Life.temp (talk) 12:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * If this page is only for discussing content disputes why have you been using it to attack another editor? Vide your comment above: "In addition, Igorberger is being extremely difficult. He is now initiating an edit war that involves reverting all changes in the last week or so, wiping out dozens of edits. He is making accusatory and dismissive comments about other editors (mostly me), and not addressing reasons given for edits." Colin4C (talk) 16:02, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Life.temp's arguments are just a rehash of Bsharvy's arguments which he used in order to trash the Anti-Americanism article: Articles for deletion/Anti-Americanism. He lost the vote on this. I feel that this Mediation session has only been called out because of Bsharvy's pique that the article was not deleted at that point. Colin4C (talk) 16:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Note Colin4C your continued accusations and insinuations against Life.temp of being a sock of Bsharvy are without merit. This matter has been finalised here. As per my warning on your page please do not come back here with this form of continued single purpose form of harassment - deal with the issue related to the article content or please move on to do something else of usefulness on wikipedia.-- VS  talk 21:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * These mediation cabals are unofficial and not recognised by the wikipedia:: "This page will never be Wikipedia policy. It is, by design, entirely informal. The Mediation Cabal provides informal mediation for disputes on Wikipedia. We cannot confirm or deny our existence." Therefore you cannot use what is said here to persecute and bully me on my own page. I am a longstanding editor of Anti-Americanism article unlike both you (who has never contributed to it) and Life-temp (who first registered three weeks ago). You are not the mediator of this page, and have never contributed to the article in question. As for usefulness my articles have been much praised by other editors. See for instance Music hall which got a GA rating by other editors. I am dedicated to improving the quality of the wikipedia and feel I have made a major contribution to it in the last two years. And I AM addressing the issues. For instance see above for my reply to Life.temp allegation that "none of the articles in the "Peer Reviewed" section are peer-reviewed". I pointed out to him there definate proof that International Studies Quarterly is indeed peer reviewed at http://www.isq.unt.edu/ . It is common practice for academic journals to be peer reviewed. I should know because I used to edit one myself and contribute to other journals! Peer review is standard practice in all academic journals. That's what makes them 'academic' in the first place. Colin4C (talk) 09:56, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The Mediation cabal page says: "WE DO NOT IMPOSE SANCTIONS OR MAKE JUDGEMENTS". Is that true or not? And here I am being judged and having sanctions threatened against me for what I say here in good faith! That just isn't fair. If I'd known that what I said here would be taken down in evidence and used against me on other pages of the wikipedia I wouldn't have participated in the first place. I am therefore withdrawing from this process. Goodbye. Colin4C (talk) 13:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * As posted on your talk page in further detail Colin4C - your edits anywhere are appreciated but not where they are focusing via Personal Attack on another editor. Personal Attacks are not permitted on any part of Wikipedia - and if you being told so by another editor means that you must walk away from the project then so be it.  However you have a previous good history of editing - other than a couple of previous warnings - and a return to that type of editing will be appreciated.  The ball is in your court.-- VS  talk 13:53, 18 April 2008 (UTC)