Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-02-11/Paul Watson

Where's the dispute?
The article as a whole, but specifically about including Allison Watson's arrest record in the article.

Talkpage: Talk:Paul_Watson

What's the dispute?
User:Mervyn Emrys has continually tried to add information about Paul Watson's wife to the article, when reverted and brought up on the talkpage, he has used increasingly sarcastic and hostile replies and edit summaries, accusing editors of being bodyguards of Paul's. I created another article for Allison Lance Watson so that information about her could be added there, rather than in the article on Paul, which was ignored, and all of the information was added back in. Efforts have been made to correspond with the user by myself, User:Ms. Sarita, and User:Will Beback, which were all replied to in a hostile manner. Efforts to discuss can be found on all users talkpages or history/archives. Diffs can be provided if necessary.-- Terrillja talk  22:10, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Note that as a result of a report at WP:3RR, I have protected the page for now. It is for a week, but let me know if it interferes with any mediation. Kevin (talk) 03:54, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

As said by Terrillja above, Mervyn Emrys has been attempting to add information to the Paul Watson article about Paul's wife, Allison. The information has nothing to do with Paul, nor is there any evidence that Paul directly influenced Allison's actions in the incident in question. Therefore, I don't believe this particular piece belongs in the article as it brings a section of it out of focus. The article is about Paul Watson, not Allison Watson.
 * Comments from Ms. Sarita

Terrillja and I, as well as an administrator (Will Beback), have all tried to work with Mervyn regarding this disagreement. We have all been met with rudeness, hostility, sarcasm, and a refusal to compromise and communicate, as evidenced by the Paul Watson discussion page and our talk pages. Will Beback and I have both made comments on Mervyn's talk page, but Mervyn simply deleted the discussions and either ignored us or was hostile.

I would really like this to be resolved, not only for the sake of a peaceful editing environment, but also so that we may all begin finding reliable sources and cleaning up the article. Terrillja and I are trying to get this article up to GA status, even though Mervyn believes it has "no chance". This has all merely been a distraction for everyone.

These are just a few examples: An example of a hostile edit summary. An example of an unnecessary sarcastic edit summary. According to Mervyn, I am trying to "cover up" Allison's actions. I must be on a first-name basis with Paul. – Ms. Sarita  Confer  17:23, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

My first ever post One of the first posts from this user on my talkpage was this, where he called me a jackass. Really showed a will to contribute there. Multiple editors have tried to work with Mervyn to try and get him to contribute positively and stop the sarcastic edit summaries and comments, but he has rebuffed all attempts, including one by an uninvolved sysop.
 * Additional comments from Terrillja  talk

Mervyn was never told to go somewhere else, I only said that information on Allison should be in her article, and that the article on Paul should stay on point about him. I certainly welcome Mervyn to help find references and contribute to the article, since he added all the fact tags.

Another example of Mervyn's inability to remain civil can be found here:. -- Terrillja talk  17:31, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Mediator Remarks

 * Parameters of dispute have been identified and proposals for language change to the article have been made. Waiting for all parties to support or oppose current wording. Trusilver  19:48, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Taken a step backwards. Wording rejected and we have returned to the beginning again. Trusilver  02:25, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Trusilver's Sandbox
In response to your request, I respectfully provide the following information.

1. This article is a biography, and biographies ordinarily contain information about parents and spouses, the moreso if any of them are notable. Brief discussion of Watson’s spouse, Allison Lance Watson is important to the article because she is a prominent animal rights activist, which is more notable than usual because Watson is also a notable animal rights activist. The fact his interest in this area is closely shared by his spouse will be of interest to any reader. Moreover, by their own admissions, Paul Watson and Allison Watson share strategies of direct action involving civil disobedience to advance animal rights. Paul Watson is proud of the fact he has been arrested many times for his actions, and the fact that Allison Watson has also been arrested for her actions in the same interest area is relevant to their relationship and to his biography. This will also be of interest to the reader because it indicates a certain consistency between Paul Watson’s controversial public life and his private life, suggesting he privately lives what he publicly espouses to believe. This is a factual indication about his character, which is appropriate for his biography, and the facts should be allowed to speak for themselves. They cannot, if they are repeatedly deleted.

What would I consider to be an acceptable outcome to this mediation? There are two parts to this answer:

2. A. Ms. Sarita and Terrillja should agree to stop reverting my edits to the Paul Watson article without actual discussion and negotiation, which I understand to mean the discussion and negotiation must occur BEFORE changes are made to my edits. Negotiation means exchange of proposals and counter proposals, not just an edit summary with a revert before any discussion takes place. They should stop reverting things that do not fit with their own personal preferences, and allow the facts to speak for themselves.

2. B. Ms. Sarita and Terrillja should agree to insertion of the following text with associated third-party reliable sources late in the article in a section about Watson’s family life, which should include mention of his first wife and children. Placement of this information late in the article will place appropriate emphasis on it and will not detract from the “focus” of the article.


 * His second wife Allison Lance Watson, like Watson a prominent animal rights activist, was arrested in 2004 by FBI anti-terrorism agents for allegedly lying to a federal grand jury about loaning a rental truck to animal rights arsonists. ("Animal rights activist arrested in Seattle grand jury probe." Komo Staff and News Services, KomoNews.com, January 15, 2004.) After perjury charges were dropped, she was called again to testify before a grand jury and refused, subsequently pleading guilty to misdemeanor contempt charges for failing to answer the grand jury’s questions. (Shukovsky, Paul. "No perjury charges vs. animal activist." Seattle Post-Intelligencer, September 9, 2004.)

Please note this text is substantially shorter than earlier versions of the text that were repeatedly deleted from the article by Ms. Sarita and Terrillja, indicating my effort to accommodate their concerns about length and emphasis. Please also note relevant to item #2.A above this is not the only edit of mine they deleted from this article; there were a series, and this behavior must cease.

Having recently brought two articles to Good Article status, one of which is a biography, this article appears to me to have a ways to go before it would pass a GA review. Currently it contains 30 references, and most of the inline citations are to either the Sea Shepherd website or interviews with Paul Watson, meaning it suffers from the self-promoting, self-serving tendencies of all autobiographies, in addition to being at least partially self-published by Paul Watson, who started and runs Sea Shepherd. Until Terrillja added a half-dozen third party sources in the past week or so, the article was even more lopsided, and read like an advertisement for Sea Shepherd. There was even an external link to Paul Watson’s blog!

Although some self-published information may be used in biographies of living persons under limited circumstances, there are special circumstances concerning this biography that place that policy in direct conflict with the Wikipedia policy on reliable sources. According to the New York Times, in his book "Earthforce!" Watson advised readers to make up facts and figures when they need to, and to deliver them to reporters confidently. (“Militants sink two of Iceland's Whaling Vessels.” New York Times, November 10, 1986.)

That is, Watson advocates lying in support of his cause, which means he cannot be considered a reliable source about anything concerning his cause or his role in it.

Heavily relying on Paul Watson’s self-published information, as this biography does, is highly questionable and problematic, certainly violating the spirit if not the letter of WP:RS.

In fact, there is information in the Paul Watson article about the circumstances of his departure from Greenpeace that is disputed, Watson’s version on the Sea Shepherd website being at substantial variance from the version on the Greenpeace website. So which one is the reliable source in this instance?

Moreover, the section of the article about someone attempting to shoot Paul Watson is seriously disputed by other editors on the article talk page, and likely will have to be deleted before the article could pass any responsible GA review.

I edit on many articles in Wikipedia, and have rarely encountered any difficulties with other editors (one does seem to run a greater risk when editing articles about controversial subjects, where feelings are often intense and interested parties are attracted to the subject). I have also published over 110 scholarly publications including several books, and several encyclopedia articles for commercial publishers in two countries. I have a lot of experience with professional editors and rarely have had any difficulties with them. Most will listen to reason.

I will provide responses to each of the accusations leveled against me and diffs provided by Ms. Sarita and Terrillja on the WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring page if you are interested, which you may not be. So it goes. I understand. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 16:14, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Mediation Request
I have looked over the request for mediation as well as the talk page for this article. I think that I have a good understanding of the nature of the dispute and would like to see it resolved, especially for an article that seems very close to being ready for Good Article status. At this time, my first questions are for User:Mervyn Emrys. Specifically, I would like two things answered: First, why do you feel that mention of the subject's second wife is important to the article, or how it affects the reader's overall impression of the subject? Second, what would you consider to be an acceptable outcome to this mediation? If it would help you to illustrate this, I would like you to make the desired edits to the article and place the finished product as you wish to see it in User:Trusilver/MediationSandbox.

To the other parties in the dispute, bear with me for a short time. Seeing that User:Mervyn Emrys is the only one that has not yet stated his position in the dispute, I would like to get his perspective before starting any discussion. Thank you. Trusilver 06:45, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * User:Mervyn Emrys has made a long statement at User talk:Kevin that may be useful in gauging his position. Kevin (talk) 22:55, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Kevin, if I would like to respond to Mervyn regarding his statement, do I have permission to do so at your talk page, or should I do it somewhere else? Thanks. – Ms. Sarita  Confer  23:30, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I've read over everyone's statements. Give me a couple days to familiarize myself with the subject in question. I have never heard of Paul Watson until this time yesterday, and it is going to take me quite a bit of reading to get up to speed. Thank you all for your patience. Trusilver 04:37, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't mind if you respond there, but it may split the discusssion into 2 places. Kevin (talk) 22:28, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * If you don't mind, please try to keep the entire discussion here. It will really save on the confusion in the long-term. Trusilver  02:37, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry it has taken me so long to get back to you all on this. My presence has been down a little bit lately as I have been recovering from the flu. the one thing that I notice looking into this is that neither argument is exactly meritless. The part that I want to focus on is the suitability for inclusion when it comes to information relating to, but not necessarily including the subject of the article. I recently looked at and reverted an edit on Dr. Laura's article which was critical of the MySpace page content of the subject's son. The reason I removed this from the article is simple: The subject of an article is just that: the subject of the article. Any information added to the article must demonstrate a clear correlation to the subject. For example: If Mrs. Notable Person's husband gets caught dealing heroin out of the truck of his Ford Torino, that merits no place in Mrs. Notable Person's article. (This is Wikipedia, not TMZ.com. We aren't gossip whores) However, If Mrs. Notable Person's husband deals heroin out of the trunk of his Ford Torino, and then Mrs. Notable Person goes on the Today Show to defend her drug-dealing husband, then the clear correlation has been established and her actions have made it notable. Therefore, in order for the actions of Paul Watson's wife to be included in this article, they must be directly relevant to Paul Watson himself. I would like thoughts on this from all sides, who feels that this correlation does or does not exist and how is it demonstrated in a verifiable way? Trusilver 02:45, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with Mervyn that they are related in their activism, which should certainly be noted. As far as the charges against her, unless there is a source to say that Paul Watson actually was involved in the action which led to her charges, then it would be better to state something to the effect of she is an activist and has been charged for her activities. I agree with your example above, unless the subject was involved in the event, it should be on a blp of the person involved. We should however note her (occupation?), as it provides context to Paul Watson's life.-- Terrillja talk  03:31, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I also agree with Mervyn that Paul Watson's and Allison Watson's similar interests should be mentioned (as I mentioned here and here). The only point that I was arguing is that going into detail about one particular incident that Allison was involved in is unwarranted in the Paul Watson article because we have no clue whether Paul was directly involved in said incident. The incident, as far as I can tell, has nothing to do with Paul other than the fact that his wife partook in it. If we mention this one incident, why mention this one and not anything else about her that is related to activism? What makes this particular happening, that involves Allison, so special that it must be included in the Paul Watson article? In my opinion, a mere mentioning of her activism and her run-in(s) with the law should suffice. As you can see, Trusilver, I also agree with your example. I hope you are feeling better. Cheers. – Ms. Sarita  Confer  07:43, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The Sea Shepherd Conservation Society is in effect Paul Watson. He makes that clear in his books Ocean Warrior and Earthforce! Allison Watson is more than merely Paul Watson’s wife; she is a major player in Sea Shepherd. A search of her name on the Sea Shepherd website produces 49 instances in which she is mentioned in news items about Sea Shepherd actions (most or all of them written by Paul Watson). In these news articles, Allison Watson is variously referred to as a “veteran crew member of the Sea Shepherd,” a “Sea Shepherd volunteer,” a “Sea Shepherd protester,” a “former Sea Shepherd Field Agent,” a member of “our support crew manning the phones at our headquarters” during a protest, a “staff member of Sea Shepherd Conservation Society,” a “Sea Shepherd activist,” and one of two “leaders of the Sea Shepherd Toxic Lunch Campaign” against the killing of dolphins in Japan. Only a few other persons are mentioned in these stories even once.


 * Clearly Allison Watson has long been a notable person in the activities of Paul Watson in the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, which made him notable.


 * Moreover, these articles reveal that Allison Watson had been arrested previously during Sea Shepherd actions, once in May 1999 during an action protesting whaling by the Makah tribe in the Pacific Northwest, and again in November 2003 when she spent 23 days in a Japanese jail for freeing a group of dolphins that were to be killed by Japanese fishermen. Paul Watson consistently defends these actions and portrays them as heroic. Another article describes Allison Watson as the founder of a new group with which Sea Shepherd partners to address the impact of exotic species on the Galapagos Islands: the Society (to) Prevent Exotic Contamination (of) Island Eco-Systems (and) Endangered Species or S.P.E.C.I.E.E.S.


 * Thus, the association between Paul Watson and Allison Watson is more than that of two spouses, but is “directly relevant to Paul Watson himself” and the activities in Sea Shepherd which made him notable.


 * After Allison Watson was arrested in Seattle, Paul Watson did not go on the Today Show to defend her, but did something much more public in attempting to reach a potentially much larger audience: he published two articles on the Internet that not only defended Allison Watson’s actions but went further and portrayed her as a victim of government persecution.


 * On September 11, 2003 a “news” article was posted on the Sea Shepherd website characterizing a Grand Jury investigating the firebombing of an Olympia forest-product company as a “witch hunt” or an illegal British “Star Chamber” tribunal. Allison was initially charged with four felony counts of perjury for allegedly lying in her testimony about whether an activist friend -- considered by the FBI to be a suspect in the May 2000 firebombing -- had used a truck Watson had rented. That is, the Grand Jury was not directly investigating Allison, but called her as a witness while investigating somebody with whom she was associated, and Sea Shepherd characterized the investigation as somehow improper. In that article, it was stated that “the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society stands solidly behind Allison Lance Watson...and we consider it outrageous that tactics devised for fighting terrorist groups like Al Queda are being used against American citizens who are championing the environment and animals.” (“Allison Lance-Watson Called Before the Star Chamber Once Again.” September 11, 2003.)


 * Clearly Sea Shepherd, and by implication its founder and leader Paul Watson, was defending Allison Watson’s refusal to testify before a legitimate Grand Jury investigation, suggesting it is somehow appropriate to oppose the legal establishment in this manner.


 * On the second occasion, on December 17, 2004 another “news” article was posted on the Sea Shepherd website which again portrayed Allison as the victim of government persecution. Allison Watson pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor contempt of court charge after refusing to answer questions from a Federal Grand Jury about people she knows in the animal rights movement, who may have connections to either the Animal Liberation Front (ALF) or the Environmental Liberation Front (ELF), two groups classified as domestic terrorist organizations by the FBI. She was sentenced to two years probation and a $5,000 fine. Four previous charges of felony perjury before a Grand Jury were dropped without prejudice by the Federal Attorney's office, which means they could be reinstated in future based on additional evidence.


 * Allison Watson was quoted favorably in the article as saying: “I stood on the principle that Grand Juries must be opposed...” One must note that that is NOT a legal principle, but is based on opposition to the law. After stating: “Allison represented all of us in representing herself” the article solicited donations to help pay her legal bills and fine. (“Allison Lance Watson Freed From Grand Jury Persecution.” December 17, 2004.)


 * Again, clearly Sea Shepherd, and by implication its founder and leader Paul Watson, was defending Allison Watson’s refusal to testify before a legitimate Grand Jury investigation, suggesting it is somehow appropriate to oppose the legal establishment in this manner. Thus, if applying Trusilver's example above seems to lead to a finding that Allison Watson's actions are in fact relevant to the article.


 * It that is not enough to make the point, in yet a third article published by Paul Watson himself, Allison Watson’s release from a Japanese jail after 23 days and payment of a fine by Sea Shepherd was not only defended but portrayed as heroic. It is noteworthy that the judge insisted the fine be paid by Sea Shepherd, suggesting the individuals were acting in behalf of the organization when they violated Japanese law to release 15 dolphins from a pen in Japan. (“Prosecutor Agrees to Release Allison and Alex jailed 22 days...but Fines Sea Shepherd 800,000 Yen ($8,000 US) for freeing dolphins!” December 3, 2003.)


 * Thus, unless the actions of Sea Shepherd can somehow be separated from Paul Watson, a possibility that defies reason, the association between Paul Watson and actions for Sea Shepherd by Allison Watson are “directly relevant to Paul Watson himself” and the activities of Sea Shepherd which made him notable. Paul Watson has defended the law breaking actions of his spouse Allison on multiple occassions. A clear correlation has been established between their actions on and has made their association notable. The actions of Allison Watson are, in effect, part of what makes Paul Watson notable.


 * Compared to all this, the two sentences I added near the end of the article were reasonable and appropriate, in my opinion. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 21:34, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Mervyn, from what I'm reading, it seems that mentioning Allison Watson is more appropriate on the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society article. In addition, what are we arguing here? Are we arguing on mentioning Allison in the Paul Watson article at all? Or are we arguing that this certain incident should or shouldn't be implemented into the Paul Watson article? I'm confused. I thought it was the latter... – Ms. Sarita  Confer  22:11, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * What I'm talking about is including the two sentences indented above with reliable sources in the section labeled: "2RR, going on three" with reference to Trusilver's proposal immediately above in this section. I thought you and Terrillja agreed with Trusilver immediately above concerning adding language to the article on Paul Watson. Have you changed your mind? Mervyn Emrys (talk) 02:59, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * For your convenience, here's the language with sources:


 * "His second wife Allison Lance Watson, like Watson a prominent animal rights activist, was arrested in January 2004 by FBI anti-terrorism agents for allegedly lying to a federal grand jury about loaning a rental truck to animal rights arsonists. ("Animal rights activist arrested in Seattle grand jury probe." Komo Staff and News Services, KomoNews.com, January 15, 2004.) After perjury charges were dropped in September 2004, she was called again to testify before a grand jury and refused, subsequently pleading guilty to misdemeanor contempt charges for failing to answer the grand jury’s questions. (Shukovsky, Paul. "No perjury charges vs. animal activist." Seattle Post-Intelligencer, September 9, 2004.)"Mervyn Emrys (talk) 03:00, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Adding "language"? Now I'm really confused. I agreed with Trusilver's example. But, I don't believe that Trusilver has proposed adding this specific piece to the article. Either you have misinterpreted Trusilver's writing or both Terrillja and myself have. My question is simple: Why is this particular arrest and perjury charge (which seems to only involve Allison Watson) so pertinent to the Paul Watson article? – Ms. Sarita  Confer  03:57, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Ms. Sarita, I think the answer to your question is quite adequately stated in the paragraphs above. Trusilver did not propose this language, but you did agree to his example. My explanation above does demonstrate the circumstances of this case do fit within his example. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 09:59, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Alternative proposal
Perhaps Ms. Sarita and Terrillja will prefer the "flavor" of and agree to include the following text and references in the Paul Watson article:
 * His second wife Allison Lance Watson, like Watson a prominent animal rights activist and veteran crew member of the Sea Shepherd, has several times been arrested in the United States and Japan during Sea Shepherd actions and on other occasions. Most recently, she pleaded guilty in 2004 to misdemeanor contempt of court charges for failing to answer a federal grand jury’s questions about loaning a rental truck to animal rights arsonists. Paul Watson has defended her unlawful actions, saying “the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society stands solidly behind Allison Lance Watson" and “Allison represented all of us in representing herself.”

In addition, Ms. Sarita and Terrillja should agree to stop reverting my edits to the Paul Watson article without actual discussion and negotiation, which I understand to mean the discussion and negotiation must occur BEFORE changes are made to my edits. Negotiation means exchange of proposals and counter proposals, not just an edit summary with a revert before any discussion takes place. They should stop reverting things that do not fit with their own personal preferences, and allow the facts to speak for themselves. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 11:09, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not going to add anything until they give their opinions on this proposal. However, Mervyn Emrys, the door swings both ways on this. When you are the lone voice of dissent on an article, it is usually best to come to an agreement on the talk page rather than just keep trying to brute force your preferred revision onto the article page. Such actions are far more likely to result in edit warring blocks than they are to result in the article turning out the way you like. Trusilver  15:10, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Look, anybody who doesn't like my proposal is free to propose an alternative. That is what negotiation actually IS. Do you suppose one of you might take a few minutes and write down a sentence or two of proposed language that might be added to the article to deal with this issue, and post it here in the discussion space so we might discuss possible modifications of that language until it meets ALL our needs, to see if we can reach an agreement?
 * I've tried that a few times here, without receiving anything back but criticism and vague suggestions. I thinks its time for somebody else to step forward. Maybe if we get down to specific words we can tinker with them enough to find agreement.
 * I've been hoping this would happen all along, but haven't seen it yet. This is what legislatures do when they write laws; what labor and management do when they negotiate employment contracts; and what coauthors usually do when they cooperate to write an article. I've tried. I'm willing. It's your turn. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 00:10, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * This is not an unreasonable request. We have seen Mervyn Emrys proposed change to the article. I'm curious what an acceptable wording (or lack of one) would be considered appropriate to the other parties in the disagreement. Trusilver  01:21, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Just wanted to drop a note, this week is an incredibly busy one for me, and I haven't had time to read everything up above here in depth. I'm hoping that I will be able to take a look at it wed or thurs, but it may be sat before I can look at it. So even if I don't reply to anything here for a few days, I'm still alive, hopefully. Sorry for the delay. -- Terrillja talk  02:29, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The encyclopedia will almost definitely still be here after your busy week, so I don't see any rush :) Trusilver  03:54, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry it's taken me so long to respond. Been a busy, busy week for me. As for the paragraph that Mervyn has proposed, I see no major objections to it. However, this is how I would write it:
 * "His second wife, Allison Lance Watson is also a prominent animal rights activist and veteran crew member of the Sea Shepherd. She has been arrested several times in the United States[1] and Japan[2] during Sea Shepherd campaigns and on other occasions. Paul has defended her actions, saying, “The Sea Shepherd Conservation Society stands solidly behind Allison Lance Watson'[4] and that “Allison represented all of us in representing herself.”[5]"
 * Aside from a few grammatical fixes, you may notice I took out an entire sentence. The reason behind this is that, not only is it a dated sentence, there's no reason to single out a specific incident involving only Allison Watson in this article. This is mostly, if not entirely, what I've been arguing this entire time.


 * Now, the following question is very important since this is a BLP: For the two quotes at the end of the proposed paragraph, has Paul Watson actually said these things? I'm looking at the references and it doesn't seem like he has. Both sources are under the "Sea Shepherd News" category, which is described as "articles written by Sea Shepherd". Also, the reference supporting the statement that Allison has been arrested in Japan is also a "Sea Shepherd News" article, but it specifically states that it is a "Report by Captain Paul Watson", whereas the other two references do not. So rather, the sources are news stories written by someone at Sea Shepherd, but we don't know who, and there is enough reasonable doubt (just from what I have briefly observed) to assume that Paul has not said these things. If this is the case, the quotes need to be removed.


 * In addition, Mervyn, I'm slightly irked that you are demanding that Terrillja and I must agree to refrain from reverting your edits without discussing it on the talk page first. I suggest you conduct a thorough reading of WP:OWN, specifically in the "Ownership examples" section, where it states, "The editor may state or imply that changes must be reviewed by him/her before they can be added to the article." So, I'm sorry, but I won't agree to "making sure that it is okay with you before reverting any edits made by you".


 * I'm also a little annoyed that you act as if Terrillja and I have not tried to work this out with you, Mervyn. We have tried discussing this with you; we have tried to involve an administrator to do some mediation; and Terrillja opened a Medcab because we agreed that we wanted to try and work this out peacefully, not with trying to get people blocked. *cough cough* So, please don't point fingers. This not about letting or not letting "facts speak for themselves". This is about writing a Wikipedia article, keeping the article on focus, concise, and clear, and helping to promote the article to GA status (even though you believe it will never make it to that point).
 * – Ms. Sarita  Confer  18:06, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Does Terrillja agree with and support your proposal above? Mervyn Emrys (talk) 00:27, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what Terrillja thinks of this proposal. We will have to wait for him to look everything over and weigh in. – Ms. Sarita  Confer  00:32, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Your proposal is interesting and has potential to resolve this matter, with a couple minor changes. However, before I make a counter proposal, I need to know if Terrillja is in agreement with your proposal.
 * It is unfortunate you are irked about my other comment concerning the utility of discussion before you revert my edits to the article. Please allow me to point out, however, that the example you refer to at WP:OWN does NOT describe the current situation. I did not suggest "changes must be reviewed by him/her before they can be added to the article." I requested only that you "agree to stop reverting my edits to the Paul Watson article without actual discussion and negotiation." That is, I request you engage in discussion before repeatedly reverting edits I have already made to the article. That is a quite different circumstance from the one at WP:OWN that you refer to. It is you who repeatedly reverted my edits, not me demanding discussion before you add anything. Different circumstances.
 * But that is largely irrelevant to your current proposal, if you wish to reach agreement now and move forward. I suggest we focus instead on the language you have proposed. If Terrillja finds it acceptable, I will propose minor changes which I think you both may be able to find acceptable--but of course, you will determine that. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 00:53, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * That being said, I agree with Mervyn Emrys. I feel that we should table any further discussion until Terrillja has a chance to review the proposed revision and give feedback. At that time we will know that everyone is on the same page moving forward, and then proceed from there. Trusilver  01:04, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I do agree that we should wait to see Terrillja's response before doing anything. I didn't plan on anything being changed before Terrillja said his piece. As far as me being irked, the example was just that: an example. The example is similar to the current situation. Instead of dicussing any additions with you, any reverts or edits to your writing must go through you first. Irritating and a clear example of WP:OWN. I won't agree to any such request. But, I agree that we should wait to continue this discussion until we agree on the writing. – Ms. Sarita  Confer  04:29, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Lets attempt to keep to the matter at hand, that being the wording of the article. Mediation is done in content related disputes only. I can help you reach a middle ground over the article, I can't help you over such issues as WP:OWN. If you want to make a new heading and discuss that, then by all means do so. But for the time being, lets keep this particular discussion on task. Trusilver  05:20, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I agreed to keep the topic related to the wording. But I did want to respond to Mervyn about his demand in the beginning of the mediation and why I refuse to abide by it. But yes, I agree that it should be left alone for now. My apologies, Trusilver. – Ms. Sarita  Confer  08:17, 26 February 2009 (UTC)