Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-05-15 WikiProject Automobiles

Who are the involved parties?
Dddike, user:IFCAR, user:Scheinwerfermann, User:Daniel J. Leivick, user:PrinceGloria, User:842U

What's going on?
policy is trying to be written on acceptable images for lead articles, consensus wasn't reached yet policy was added to conventions anyway, with "rough consensus" WikiProject Automobiles/Conventions. I think I've stumbled across a oligarchy that "mediates" content, and attempts to educate how information is added to automobile related articles.

What would you like to change about that?
I get the feeling that the establishment doesn't like me questioning past procedures

Mediator notes

 * I'm happy to serve as meditator in this dispute. Over the next few days I will read through the article and associated talk pages to familarize myself. In this time, both sides should submit comments stating their position on the matter. I look foward to a speedy resolution. Please sign all of your posts.--Kevin Murray (talk) 18:52, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The mediation has been opened. I will contact the named parties and confirm their interest in the process, and post a notice at the talk page requesting other interested parties to join.--Kevin Murray (talk) 18:52, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


 * It appears that we have IFCAR, Scheinwerfermann, Daniel J. Leivick, and PrinceGloria supporting the "approved" process with Dddike and 842U opposing the process.  While we profess to ignore numbers in determining consensus, in reality the majority usually rules at WP.  Since I am unfamiliar with any WP policy that allows a project to dictate style guidelines, the enforcement of any standard at the articles will be up to the consensus at that article, and the standard is just a suggestion.  I recommend investigating whether this standard should be included in the Manual of Style where it might carry more weight and discussion likely attract broader attention.

The discussion of editors' behavior is beyond the scope of the mediation. --Kevin Murray (talk) 20:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Discussion
what do you recommend?


 * Hi! I would be good if you filled out all of the people involved in this case. Besides that I am having problems figuring out what's wrong. Could you provide Diffs? Thanks,   CWii ( Talk  23:43, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The users involved are, and my appologies if I misspell the user names, are IFCAR, Scheinwerfermann, Daniel. J. Levick, PrinceGloria, 842U (and discovered sockpuppets) and myself. IFCAR, Scheinwerfermann are the primary opponents that decide which images will be used, and new editors who disagree will be informed how things are done at this project concerning automobiles.

Their are multiple examples listed on IFCAR's talk page, where other editors found cause to disagree with that editor, and he simply reverts to his edit and warns the other editor of the 3RR rule to win his position. I've had objections with that editor as well, and simply gave in. This time, the objection was between 842U and IFCAR, and I decided to contribute to the dispute between them.

IFCAR moved the discussion to the project talk page, Scheinwerfermann seemed to assume the role of mediator (with bias) and the debate began. Consensus, according to these editors, is based on what the larger group says it is and the minority, as can be seen in the discussion, is disregarded. Policy was written to the conventions page while the debate and consensus vote was still going on. 842U then began to use sockpuppets to show dissent, but he was discovered and reported by Scheinwerfermann, which led to his block. Scheinwerfermann then proceeded to strike all comments made by 842U for an unknown reason, as if to relegate that editors comments and dissenting point-of-view as invalid.

Scheinwerfermann seems to advocate that Wikipedia is a burearucracy,

"What you are dismissing as a "bureaucratic approach" is, like it or not, how Wikipedia works. We have protocols and procedures and in the event of a disagreement, we follow them. But if whoever has a disagreement will dismiss the procedures and protocols as bureaucratic nonsense, then the problem won't get solved. Nobody will press your point for you; if you see something wrong and want it fixed, you will have to engage and participate directly, and the only productive way to do so is within Wikipedia's structure, however unnecessarily bureaucratic you may misperceive it to be." I assumed that he was correct until I contacted an administrator that blocked 842U for sockpuppetry, Tiptoety. I asked that admin for advice and received a reply that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy and voting is acknowledged but not encouraged with the results not necessarily binding, and then posted in links to those official policies found at "What Wikipedia is not". At one point the definition of consensus was being debated, so I went to a dictionary to learn what the word meant, and was rebuffed because the definition conflicted with the objectives of the other side.

My primary objection in this debate isn't necessarily the subject used for the image. Whatever contributes effectively to the article is the primary purpose. I object, however, to the "rulling counsel" approach that seems evident to me and the process of re-educating new editors how things are done at this project.(Dddike (talk) 14:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC))


 * In a nutshell:


 * WikiProject Autos has long held to an unwritten convention that the car photo included in the top infobox be of the highest image quality. I proposed putting this into writing to be clear to some users, who preferred the idea of favoring whatever car is the newest. There was broad support for the proposal, from all members involved except Dddike and another user who was indefinitely blocked for bringing sockpuppets into the discussion.


 * Dddike does not accept the validity of any policy that does not derive from 100% agreement, and has accused pretty much everyone who disagrees with him of trying to run things their own way and force out everyone who has a different opinion.


 * The convoluted discussion can be found at the WikiProject Autos talk page. 1


 * Enjoy.. IFCAR (talk) 21:47, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * One can question past procedures, but over the course of the abovementioned discussion we have achieved a new (or renewed, if you'd accept the pre-existing consensus) consensus. As there is only one user (that has not been banned) who does not agree, I believe it to be valid and standing, while the disagreeing user, to put it rather bluntly, can't get over it. If there were substantial arguments that were not discussed during the consensus process, I could agree the issue should be re-opened. But all that is left is attacking the procedure, and specifically one that is rather irrelevant, as there is a brand new consensus now.
 * Please excuse my awful language here, I am totally upset by the Isis Gee vandal now. PrinceGloria (talk) 20:24, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Dddike has done plenty of complaining about the process by which we came to a decision, but has failed to give any compelling arguments in support of his/her side of the debate. They are welcome to discuss this issue further at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles/Conventions‎, but I can't really see how mediation is going to help.  --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 21:15, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Dan, understanding how consensus is acheived at WP can be equally as difficult as demostrating that consensus has been acheived. I have recently been spending a lot of time working with others on a better definition of WP:Consensus; ironically but not surprisingly there has been little consensus about what consensus really is. --Kevin Murray (talk) 21:23, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd say "everybody but Ddike agrees" is a rather good definition of consensus in this very case. Really, consensus is something we rarely see in our WikiProject, and once a discussion has moved almost every member of our rather low-activity WikiProject to chip in, and we have achieved an almost unanimous agreement, this is constantly being attacked by one single person wasting everybody's (and now yours too, Kevin) time. Excuse me for being blunt again, but a debate is not always a good idea. PrinceGloria (talk) 21:27, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Kevin, I was concerned that I didn't understand what the word meant, so I went to a dictionary, and read for myself from the world respected Meriam-Webster dictionary what they defined the word to be, but I was promptly rebuked for not consulting Wikipedia first for the listed definition. What I've come to learn is the "group has achieved consensus" and I am most definitely not part of the group, so what I have to say is against the group, and I will never be considered part of the group. The established group has decided, and as far as they are concerned, the discussion is closed.(Dddike (talk) 22:02, 22 May 2008 (UTC))
 * There should be no strangle hold on a project by one small group; however, it does look like these participants may represent a broader consensus over time, but consensus can change. If you feel strongly that you are right and they are wrong you can advertise you opinion at the Village pump or submit a request for comment.  Carefully weigh the energy you will spend and the friction against what you perceive to be the benefit.  We are here to inform the world, but also to have fun and make friends.

Do I interpret that this mediation is successfully closed? --Kevin Murray (talk) 22:44, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I was not the only one in objection. I believe there were two other editors who haven't yet joined this discussion. (Dddike (talk) 23:02, 22 May 2008 (UTC))


 * To my knowledge, there was only one other objector. That objector -- and his numerous sockpuppets -- have been blocked from editing. IFCAR (talk) 23:50, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, so the blocked user is off the list of participants and we are waiting to hear from Scheinwerfermann. I suggest that parties take the weekend to see if any other members of the project have objections to the consensus claimed for this standard. If not let's try to resolve this issue on Tuesday. Thanks! --Kevin Murray (talk) 00:06, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I am only considered part of the group if I agree with them(Dddike (talk) 01:04, 23 May 2008 (UTC))
 * I don't see that as a valid statement. We are all part of the greater group of people who choose to donate time to WP, and the project is full of constant disgreements.  You may not agree with the consensus on this particular issue, but certainly there are probably more issues where you share a common ground with these editors than where your opinions diverge.  --Kevin Murray (talk) 01:12, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Dddike, I get the sense that you feel like you have been rejected by WP:AUTO because you disagree with the consensus there, this is not the case. I don't agree with every decision that has been made through consensus on theproject. For example I don't really agree with the practice of using a model's home market name as the page name in every case, but the consensus is against me so I move on and work on other things.  If I felt really strongly about the issue as you may with this issue, I would continue to present and clarify my argument in order to change other's minds or reach a compromise, what I wouldn't do is complain about the process by which we achieve consensus, in the Wikipedia sense which differs from the dictionary definition.  I certainly see you as a member of the group at WP:AUTO and hope that this doesn't prevent you from participating in the future. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 05:34, 23 May 2008 (UTC)




 * I have asked --Kevin Murray to keep an eye on this conversation for a bit longer.


 * For what its worth, there was no specific guideline regarding the lead images before my May 8th edit war with IFCAR on the Subaru Forester page -- and hence, no verifiable consensus.


 * I thought it would be worth considering a flexible guideline that allowed best available examples of either latest or earlier generations of an car -- given that a later gen photo could offer fresh information in trade for some presence of glare or background info -- and an older gen photo would offer less glare or background noise to offset its being a model out of production or not as notable as a just-released model.  They seem roughly equal in my find -- and for the record, I have not once asked that all lead photos be one or the other.


 * I regret having deliberately sidestepped Wikipedia rules. For the record, IFCAR also deliberately asked Scheinwerferman to assist him in thwarting the rules here, which Scheinwerferman then did. This is troublesome in that I was singled out for participating in an EW and for 3RR when I wasn't alone. And for the record, it is against the Wikipedia rules to strike through someone elses comments -- and I would respectfully request that my comments in the WPA discussion be unstricken.


 * I understand that consensus requires discipline and effort to understand and to reach. I will honor whatever the outcome is here. 842U (talk) 21:07, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


 * 842U, I don't know how you got yourself unblocked (if it is you), but there was a consensus reached in the WikiProject and your opinion was voiced, listened to (many times, as you have used multiple sockpuppets to voice it or simply your discontentment) and included in the discussion. Ultimately, the guideline adopted might not be one that suits your needs or desires, but that's what the vast majority found appropriate. I don't think mediation is needed in such a case. PrinceGloria (talk) 21:17, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * PS. Your feud with IFCAR notwithstanding - we now have a clear consensus and guideline that a picture for the head infobox is being chosen based solely on the picture's quality, not recentness of the vehicle in the picture. Thus the second picture submitted by yourself would have precedence over the former (newer-gen) one.
 * At Wikipedia, is the concept of consensus in the eye of the beholder? How is one considered part of the group that decides if consensus has been reached? Is this determined by the amount of volunteer editing successfully contributed at Wikipedia (20MB or more)? Or, is it considered by years of service? To be considered part of WikiProject Automobiles, an editor simply adds the userbox to the users page, and there seems to be no qualifications required before installing the userbox, other than programming knowledge to successfully add the userbox. If the userbox is added, is the user considered part of the group that decides consensus? Is there some type of initiation that the user must successfully complete? Must the editor be invited by an established member of the group? Is there some type of secret handshake? Honestly, I am confused(Dddike (talk) 22:30, 23 May 2008 (UTC))

Here I am, sorry I'm late!
Sorry to be late to the discussion. I was out of the country and had no internet access for ~9 days. Dddike, you may recognise much of what I'm about to say, because I posted it on your talk page and you repeatedly deleted it (once, twice) with edit summaries suggesting you have no interest in coöperative dialogue, before leaving a note on my talk page in which you state your "heels are firmly dug in". As I mentioned in my response, it's dismaying and discouraging that you seem more interested in having your way than in having your say; as PrinceGloria says and the discussion to date clearly demonstrates, you've had every opportunity to participate fully in the consensus-building process, but can't seem to grasp that in the end, if the consensus goes against what you want, there comes the time to stop insisting on your way. I will also add that I find it very challenging to place much faith in your most recent assertion that you are "confused". The consensus process and philosophy has been explained to you numerous times by numerous people, who have supplied you with numerous links to get up to speed on it. It really seems your confusion, if any, is more about your unwillingness to understand than it is about your inability to understand. It really seems like you are trying to ask the other parent because you have not received the answer you wanted.

With that context on the table, onward to my main comments: As the probable 842U sockpuppet alleged in his comment on your talk page (which I note you've chosen to leave in view, contrary to your normal pattern), I'm not impartial. That's correct. In fact, I have never asserted impartiality. None of us is impartial, because we are all human. One of the reasons we have the consensus doctrine on Wikipedia so that all contributors' partiality is more or less cancelled out. I took on a facilitating role in parts of the various conversations — also correct. In no way did I try to exclude those whose opinions differ from my own; take note that I specifically invited interested editors to participate whose opinion very obviously was counter to my own. Fact is, you are the only non-sock adherent to the position that a relatively poor-quality photo of a newest-model vehicle should be regarded as equal to a relatively high-quality photo of an earlier-model vehicle in auto article lead infoboxes. You are the only participant in the debate who does not agree with the consensus. All the other dissenters are either known or strongly suspected (and reported) sockpuppets of. That doesn't mean you're wrong, and it doesn't mean your opinion is worthless. It's just that one of the realities of Wikipedia's consensus-based decisionmaking is that sometimes we don't agree with the consensus that develops. There comes a point, which by most opinions you have passed, when the appropriate thing to do is gracefully accept that your view does not accord with the consensus and move on to more productive contributions to the encyclopædia. You are not being silenced, oppressed, railroaded, censored, or hushed up.

As for my edit to the lead photo in Subaru Forester, yep, I did make that edit. did draw my attention to the photo, but he certainly didn't force me to make the edit or manipulate me into doing so. My agreement with his assessment of the relative quality of the two images in question does not mean I'm nefariously in cahoots with IFCAR, it just means I agree that his preference is more in line than yours with Wikipedia image policy. Sometimes an edit war can be cooled down if a third party comes in and makes an edit, thus taking away the urge to revert retributively on principle rather than on the merits of the particular edit in question. As a checkuser or simple contrib scrutiny clearly shows, I'm no lapdog of IFCAR's. He has asked me on occasion to do this or that specific thing; most often my answer has been "no" — especially recently when he has asked me to circumvent Wikipedia protocol and process relative to the discussion about lead photo images in auto articles. Likewise, I recently asked him for his input (in those terms) on a matter unrelated to the lead photo debate, and the input he provided went against my preferences. That is fine with me; I asked for (and got) his input, not his shillwork. The goal is not for one editor's opinion or preference to "win" over another's, but to improve the encyclopædia through community-supported consensus, which — I hasten to remind you — does not mean, require, or imply unanimity according to the definition we use here on Wikipedia (notwithstanding the contextually irrelevant dictionary definition you are pushing).

Finally, your suggestion I altered my talk page to hide some nefarious collusion with IFCAR is not only silly — anyone can see his request with just a couple of mouseclicks; there's nothing hidden here, and regular archiving of talk pages is utterly routine on Wikipedia — but it's also more than a little ironic given your tendency to delete critical comments from your own talk page shortly after they're posted, replacing their content with "messages read". Given this longstanding pattern of yours, I might just as easily ask you what you feel you have to hide. Baseless accusations and insinuations won't get either of us anywhere, so I suggest we both avoid them.

Notwithstanding Dddike's dissent, there is consensus on the photo quality issue and there haven't been any significant improprieties committed against Dddike in the consensus-building process related thereto. About the only issues remaining open that I see here are:

-, under yet another of his many names, having managed to convince an admin that he won't repeat his deliberate, willful, wanton proliferation of sockpuppets to abuse and manipulate the consensus process. I am hopeful but not optimistic that all of Packa/842U's socks have been found and dealt with, and I'm more than a little shocked that this deliberate disruptor's indefinite block lasted all of about 8 days. But I am not an administrator, and so if that's the way it is, that's the way it is, and we will all just have to deal with the effects — with any luck, 842U/Packa's really going to go straight so the effects will all be positive — of that administrative decision. Dddike, please take note: this is another applied example of the philosophy I've described at length above. I don't agree with the decision, but the best thing for me to do at this point is voice my objection and then let it drop.

-The question of whether it was appropriate for me to have struck the contributions from 842U and his numerous socks. I did so because I agreed with another (legitimate) participant's suggestion that this would neutralise some of the damage and distortion 842U and his socks did to the consensus-building process, and thus help bring the protracted discussion to fruition. I chose to strike the text rather than delete it, for deletion of others' talk page contributions is generally neither permitted nor helpful. All of the text put up by 842U and his socks remain present and visible, but struck through with a line. If this was an improper action on my part, I would be interested to know what the correct procedure would be. It seems that simply un-striking the text in question would not be in the best interest of the project, for it would be tantamount to giving 842U and all of his socks full voice in a process he deliberately and inappropriately tried to disrupt and distort. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 16:17, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Dddike, I realise you are unhappy that text supporting your unpopular position was struck through when it was found to have been contributed by 842U and his many socks, but please don't take unilateral action on a potentially fraught issue like this. It doesn't help. It shouldn't be long before administrative clarification and/or consensus comes forth on whether that text should remain struck, be unstruck, or be otherwise flagged as the product of a deliberately disruptive contributor and his socks. That's part of what's being discussed here in this mediation case. I have undone your unilateral edit. I ask you again: Will you please try and move away from a combative/competitive approach to wikipedia, and more towards a coöperative approach? Thanks. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 16:41, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

As you had no authority to strike my comments, Scheinwerfermann (and in case you don't recall, I have linked you to the comments regarding your infraction from the administrator, Tiptoety), I ask that you please unstrike the comments.

Nothing here places you above the same rules you wish to enforce with respect to others. And this goes for IFCAR asking |you you to make an edit specifically to help him avoid the very rules you attack others for breaking -- not to mention |your swift and clear compliance with his request.

So, very simply, you have been informed that it was against the rules for you to strike the comments. Please un-strike the comments.' 842U (talk) 02:01, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I sometimes think all sockpuppets and purported sockpuppet operators are somehow operated by a single person, given that their patterns are so similar... Anyway, 842U, the consensus built as a result of your (IMHO malicious) actions is quite clear, you can take your issues with IFCAR and Scheinwerfermann to appropriate bodies if you please (though I believe their actions were alright in trying to fend off what amounted to blatant vandalism and sockpuppetry), but you won't change this consensus by filibustering. Please accept the majority of the community has different views. PrinceGloria (talk) 02:16, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


 * 842U, I do not feel it would be productive to be drawn into a squabble with you over what actual rules you think I broke. Fact is, you willfully, wantonly, knowingly and repeatedly broke the rule against sockpuppetry. When you got caught, you apologised to a sympathetic administrator as a part of your (successful) effort to get unblocked, but you didn't seem to feel the need to reveal your other socks as a part of your pledge to stop behaving abusively. This suggests you're sorry you got caught, not sorry you deliberately interfered with the consensus-building process. Perhaps if you were to be more honest and forthcoming regarding your socks, it would be easier for other members of the community to assume good faith on your part. As it stands, I find it very challenging to do so. If you feel I've done something worthy of a penalty, by all means please do as PrinceGloria suggests and initiate the appropriate investigation. We have a mediator here; let's see what he has to say regarding the pending/open issues in this matter. Until then, I'm sorry you feel wronged. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 17:31, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

If the mediator is through, and reads all the discussions, a pattern is very obvious. There is a definite power struggle present, and consensus is established amongst those who matter. Besides me and 842U, there were others who dissented, but because their opinions also don't count, "consensus" has been established. Those who feel obligated to manage this tiny little kingdom of old car information can rest assured that the walls have kept out the infidels.

Congratulations; regroup to fight another day. (Dddike (talk) 14:48, 2 June 2008 (UTC))