Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-08-10 Canadian Human Rights Commission

What's going on?
There is an edit war regarding the inclusion of a "see also" section for Canadian Human Rights Commission free speech controversies. 007blur007, Hyperion Steel and Thivierr have been reverting Frank Pais' edits and Frank Pais has been reverting their edits. Frank Pais' reverts go against the formatting consensus on the article's talk page, and he has misrepresented that concensus as supporting his reverts.


 * But it should be noted for the record that sockpuppets do not equal a "concensus" (sic). Frank Pais (talk) 03:16, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The above entry by Frank Pais should make it clear that the only way he can support his position is by making facetious remarks. This is not acceptable under wiki policy. I renew my objection to Frank Pais' behaviour on this matter.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 03:28, 11 August 2008 (UTC))

"Frank" - People who disagree with you are now sockpuppets? Why not actually try discussing things for once, instead of just stamping your feet and insisting that you are correct, and that everyone else has ulterior motives? Various people have tried to discuss this (as well as edits in related articles) on both the article and your own talk pages. You invariably ignore the opportunity to discuss the matter, or insult/attack the person taking their time to contact you. Take a look at the edit history of the CHRC page. I was the one who felt that the "Free Speech Controversies" stuff was overwhelming the article and was disproportionate to the actual work and history of the CHRC. Yet, because I don't agree that the issue should be completely culled from the article, I'm a "wikistalker" with some agenda. I've tried to act with the assumption that you are just really passionate about these articles but are acting in good faith, however your ongoing nonsense is making that assumption rather difficult to maintain. 007blur007 (talk) 15:22, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

What would you like to change about that?
I would like the revert war to stop, and would like the consensus on the talk page to be respected.

Mediator notes
I'll mediate this case. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 09:49, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Discussion
To start, this diff appears to show the dispute. Please be sure to assume good faith during this process. There have been accusation of both sockpuppeting and a COI; if there's actual evidence, please make it known. Otherwise, please don't make these accusations.

It appears that User:Frank Pais is the lone dissent in this disagreement. It should also be known that the article being linked to was split out of this article, and Mr. Pais had previously pushed for that section to be excluded. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 10:00, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Jeremy - Your understanding of the issue is correct.007blur007 (talk) 12:16, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay. First, here are some relevant sections of the MOS: WP:ALSO, which covers the see also section, and WP:Hatnote, which deals with hatnotes. I'll point out that WP:SPLIT, the guide for splitting sections out, doesn't make mention of either. As we look at the difference between the two revisions, the difference is putting this in is 1) the creation of a separate heading, and 2) a summary paragraph of the controversy article. Since Frank Pais is the user wishing for these to be excluded, I think the best way to begin is to ask him his objections are to retaining them, and we can discuss the pros and cons. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 20:11, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I have tried to discuss this (politely) with Frank Pais on the article's talk page. However, my efforts have met with very limited (i.e. non-existent) success. Most recently, when I cited a wiki policy to justify my position, Frank Pais responded that "There is no onus on me to justify my style preference". If you can provide any guidance on how to deal with this issue, it would be appreciated. (Hyperionsteel (talk) 03:01, 16 August 2008 (UTC))


 * In addition, I want to clearly state that I have never been involved, nor do I have any financial interest, in any case that involves the Canadian (federal) or any provincial Human Rights Commission (HRC). (Hyperionsteel (talk) 03:12, 16 August 2008 (UTC))

What happens if Frank Pais does not respond? 007blur007 (talk) 00:35, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * He hasn't contributed in a few days, so for now, we wait. Obviously, we can't leave the article locked forever, but no need to act right away. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 01:49, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay - thanks. I'm fairly new to this.  007blur007 (talk) 15:28, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I concur with the format presented by Hyperionsteel. Frank Pais has attempted to conceal all criticism of the CHRC from the very start. Now that all criticism has been moved to its own page, the format issue is really about ensuring that the reader will be unlikely to read the referenced page.

Frank Pais has made edits unilaterally without any attempt at arriving at consensus as is required by Wikipedia policy.

I also want to state that I have never been involved, nor do I have any financial interest, in any case that involves the Canadian (federal) or any provincial Human Rights Commission (HRC). I am not even a resident of Canada. Thank you.Freedom Fan (talk) 19:58, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

New Development
User:Frank Pais has just posted a comment to my talk page stating that he now accepts my position on the format of Canadian Human Rights Commission article. I've provided the link below to the comment on my talk page below:

User_talk:Hyperionsteel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hyperionsteel#CHRC)

It looks like we may be able to resolve this issue without further conflict.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 04:00, 20 August 2008 (UTC))


 * That's certainly good news. Were there any other users objecting to the summary paragraph/hatnote style? JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 09:28, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think so. I scanned the edit history of the page and it doesn't look like anyone else was pushing for the alternate format. I can only hope that once the page is unprotected, we will not have to go through this again with another user. I've also thanked User:Frank Pais for his acceptance of my format. (Hyperionsteel (talk) 23:59, 20 August 2008 (UTC))


 * Since it looks like the issue is settled, I'll go ahead and close this case. I'll request unprotection at WP:RFPP. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 01:11, 21 August 2008 (UTC)