Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-03-18/Foam takeout container

Where's the dispute?
Foam takeout container; basically the entire article

What's the dispute?
User:Badagnani is reverting my edits without a valid reason (apparently only trying to protect his own content) and simply using the same cookie cutter response "rv blanking of crucial information; when improving or adding to an article, please try not to blank information in so doing.". I've tried communicating with him several times only to get a pointless message at the bottom of my talk page. Further requests for trying to seek a resolution has only resulted in no response.

Debate
'''Note that in this case, the users "NewSinew" and "iAdem" are the same person. I underwent a username change in the middle of it.''' --iAdem (talk) 17:06, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I am requesting first to Badagnani. Please state your side of this dispute in clear speech on this page below. I have read the talk page of the disputed page, and your argument is unclear and circular. --NewSinew (talk) 15:18, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I have done a bit more reading into this case. I have seen violations of several policies, including the following: WP:CIV, WP:EW, WP:V, and WP:3RR, as well as a potential violation of WP:OWN, all by Badagnani. Quite simply, WP:V is quite clear in that all sources must be verifiable, and Flickr pictures are certainly not. Without evidence of misconduct by Eugene2x and quite a bit of it by Badagnani, I must state that it is quite obvious who is at fault in this case. I have not seen an argument from Badagnani that adequately defends his edits. --NewSinew (talk) 16:28, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I reject the opinion of this "mediator," who did not wait for the other party's input before making his/her decision. The failure to accurately gauge the behavior of the blanking editor, particularly his/her incendiary edit summaries and insistent blanking behavior (including much text and links that were clearly not related to Flickr nor photos) prior to careful, thoughtful, collegial discussion, combined with the "mediator"'s failure to wait for the other party's input, renders the above commentary moot. Badagnani (talk) 21:13, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I have not yet made my decision. I am simply stating what I see. If you can give me a reasonable argument I will consider it and revise my statement, but I saw none. Regardless, I will analyze the exacts of the edits involved. Back later. --NewSinew (talk) 22:08, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, there is no mention of behavior of the blanking editor, particularly his/her incendiary edit summaries and insistent blanking behavior (including much text and links that were clearly not related to Flickr nor photos) prior to careful, thoughtful, collegial discussion. This is very wrong and goes even further to undermine any pretense to neutrality or thoughtfulness on the part of this "mediator." A careful examination of "the exacts of the edits involved" would have been prudent to engage in before making such comments as I see just above. Badagnani (talk) 22:10, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Alright, so you win on a couple things. I was a bit hasty; it's a problem of mine. But this isn't about what I think anyway. This is about getting you two to get along in your editing. And there's been misconduct on part of both of you; don't try to deny that. I have noticed what slipped the first time, which is this: The health issues section could have stayed. There wasn't anything wrong with that. However, the sentence "Although they are waterproof, they are typically not used to hold soup" among some others, does fall into the category of obvious and unneeded information. And most of his reversion was due to the fact that the information edited was reliant on the Flickr citations (which are not good sources) and therefore is unreferenced material, and can be removed. Keep the counter argument free of unneeded insults. --NewSinew (talk) 22:35, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I wasn't online very often today, but here's my point of view: I was only trying to revise foam take-out container a bit since it seemed that it was in need of some major cleanup. A while after I see Badagnani reverting my edits with the edit summary "rv blanking". I assumed maybe he missed the point of my edit and reverted it back, but then for one reason or another we started to (regretfully) edit war. Now Badagnani mentioned that I could have participated in some discussion before; the problem is that he ignored almost every single request of mine to discuss the reverts and try to work things out. At best, his response was something about being careful not to "delete (blank) earlier content, which in this case was all very carefully selected to produce the most encyclopedic article possible". I removed the health issues section because I found it very questionable along with very few sources that supported the argument. The sources themselves were also very questionable, especially since it came from some sort of humor site. Now that I look back it might have been better to leave it in, but I was in somewhat of a rush these past few days and not thinking too clearly.  Eugene2x -talk 03:46, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Your behavior was unacceptable; the passages to which you objected should have been presented and discussed in thoughtful, collegial, deliberate manner at "Discussion." The manner in which you deleted the material again and again (complete with over-the-top edit summaries filled with hostility), out of anger or whatever other emotion, rather than respecting another long-time, productive, and sincere editor's request to discuss first, was simply wrong. It is never too late, however, to begin editing in a collegial manner, restoring the blanked content, and begin discussing in collegial manner, following our project's ethos. Badagnani (talk) 03:52, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * So, here we are in a mediation case and you choose to further insult me and accuse me of this "over-the-top hostility" and "anger", while it is clear that you are at fault for many, many things. You also ignored all my requests for discussion like I said above so there is no reason for you to be explaining that to me. Mind WP:CIVIL please.  Eugene2x -talk 04:23, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * In light of your behavior, your comments at my Talk page appeared quite like you were picking a fight or dare rather than wishing to engage in thoughtful, collegial discussion; if you had, you would not have blanked first (and used the many over-the-top edit summaries you had). Some of the messages you left were highly threatening; in fact, some of the most threatening messages I have ever received during my tenure here. However, it is never too late to improve one's behavior. In order to do so, you would simply restore the blanked content and initiate a discussion of the elements of the article you would propose removing. Badagnani (talk) 04:44, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Despite my serious disagreement with Badagnani's tone, he does have a couple legitimate points. Edit wars usually occur because of one or more editors refusing to communicate in a "thoughtful, collegial manner," which neither of you did fully. Some of the messages that threatened to report to the admins were out of line, and insulting and demeaning the other party doesn't help anything. I would go further, but regardless of this, Eugene2x has restored the health issues section to the article. If this does not satisfy you, Badagnani, then state what else you want changed. Otherwise, we appear to be done here. --NewSinew (talk) 14:14, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I did not ask for the editor to "restore a single section of the text he removed"; I think it's very clear I made a simple request, as I had from the beginning, to discuss the proposed removals (plural) prior to implementing them, out of respect for our article, content, the and other editors, and our community as a whole. Not to do so engenders bad feeling all around and makes WP's editors appear socially maladjusted, incapable (and quite unwilling) of discussing prior to engaging in a rash campaign of deletion, other editors who have put blood, sweat, and tears into finding and adding the best available content to produce the best and most encyclopedic article previously be darned. Badagnani (talk) 15:59, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * You speak as though you have not been part of the problem as well. To put this bluntly, you were also knowingly edit-warring. Could you not have been a bit more descriptive on why you wanted the content restored? And do not forget that not everything you put into the project will stay. I am not saying Eugene2x wasn't edit-warring (as were you) but perhaps if the two of you communicated more instead of going into this blind edit-war so quickly, then this could have been avoided. If your sources are as good as you say, I am sure placing them for all to see as a suggestion on the talk page would not be unreasonable. Then we will see if consensus agrees with you, as clearly Eugene2x must somewhat, or he would not have restored the health issues section. --NewSinew (talk) 16:14, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Badagnani, if every single editor had to discuss with multiple other editors just to make a somewhat bold edit, this would hardly be Wikipedia as we know it. Even though you may be proud of your content and put "blood, sweat, and tears" into it like you say, it does not entitle you to ownership of the article (which you are strongly suggesting judging from your tone and past messages). The edit war was a mistake on both of our parts, but as NewSinew said, you are trying to avoid the fact that you also participated in it.  Eugene2x -talk 16:34, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * We must be reasonable in everything we do. Massive deletions from an article should not be insistently and hyperaggressively pursued, through repeated edits accompanied by over-the-top edit summaries. We must remain collegial and when an editor would like to remove large amounts of carefully sourced text, it is most collegial to propose such a removal at "Discussion." This was a reasonable request and it is never too late to begin afresh, editing in a manner maximally respectful of one another. In this case, that would involve restoring the blanked text and proposing its deletion at the article's "Discussion" page (fourth request). Badagnani (talk) 18:30, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * You are saying this: He shouldn't have edit warred. That's your entire argument here. And yet you did. You say he should have posted the proposed deletion at "Discussion". And yet you could have done so as well in the inverse; how about proposing the addidion yourself on said Discussion? You are refusing to admit your faults. There comes a time when one must do that. --iAdem (talk) 18:51, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Regarding the comment "perhaps if the two of you communicated more," I suppose you did not see the postings that editor left on my Discussion page; they were among the most threatening, offensive, and unwarrantedly insulting I have ever received during my tenure at WP, over which time I have spent considerable efforts to adding and improving our content. Badagnani (talk) 18:37, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I have just given them a look. They are not as threatening as you're making them out to be. Look at them; they are perfectly reasonable. You did not respond to even one of them, I notice (not counting the one today, with the same argument as in here). Why? If your edits were so justified as you say, how about stating some actual proof instead of simply saying the other editor was at fault? I have even taken several looks at archives 13 and 14 of your talk; in them are similar situations to this one where you seem to be exaggerating. --iAdem (talk) 18:51, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * No, I don't believe you have looked at them. Referring to your very first contributions here, you mooted your own mediation by making your decision at the very outset. The postings I am referring to were removed by me (and not archived), as allowing them to remain would be intolerable in light of their language and tone. Such hyperbolically threatening language could not be accorded a response (and also since the reasonable request that the blanked text be restored pending careful, thoughtful, and deliberate discussion of such proposed blanking), as I have explained at least two or three times just above, as such would serve to encourage the editor to deal with other editors in such a manner. Badagnani (talk) 19:30, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Since this discussion is just becoming an all-out flame war by Badagnani, I feel that this should be closed and a more appropriate user conduct RFC be opened. After all, I have restored the section which Badagnani complained about me removing in a more neutral POV, so what more is there to this mediation case?  Eugene2x► talk 19:51, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I take enormous offense at the above comment. I edit Wikipedia in order to work in collegial manner with other interested editors, to create the best and best-sourced articles possible. My request, restated above several times, that the editor go back, restore the carefully added and sourced text, then discuss prior to removing it rather than after, sans insistent, hyperaggressive reverts, over-the-top edit summaries, and hyperbolically threatening discussion page postings, is eminently reasonable. It is never too late to start afresh, and begin to edit in a thoughtful, deliberate manner, which privileges our collaborative process and harmony between editors, a fundamental part of Wikipedia's founding ethos. This would involve restoring the blanked content, not a fraction thereof. Badagnani (talk) 19:58, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree. This discussion is becoming worthless. I made a mistake, so be it. They happen. But how about this article. What is it, in exact quoted terms, that you want added to this article right now? Let's finish this up already. --iAdem (talk) 20:05, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * So you are basically saying that since you wrote the section, it must be restored to its original state with no changes whatsoever. This is a gross violation of WP:OWN. So aside from that, what else do you want me to do? Revert it to its cluttered original state?  Eugene2x► talk 20:08, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Aside from that, I do not consider a site titled "Grinning Planet" a reliable source, especially when few people have ever heard of it. Judging from your contributions, I also don't see any proof of working in a "collegial manner", but rather numerous other edit wars you've been involved in and reverts which are not properly backed up with an edit summary or a statement on the talk page. Eugene2x► talk 20:11, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Most of this "debate" got nothing done in the first place. If the two of you are still arguing, move it to the talk page of the article in question and see which one of you other editors side with. Unless there is anything specific that we can agree needs to be done on the page in question, this case is closed. I will close it in a few hours if not given a reason otherwise. --iAdem (talk) 21:22, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * If somebody uses the term "collegial" one more time, I am going to stick a needle in my eye.Tom (talk) 00:55, 23 March 2009 (UTC)