Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-08-07/Tripel

Where is the dispute?
I rewrote an article about Belgian tripel beer. Another editor completely rewrote the article without any warning or discussion. The new version of the article did not use NPOV and used unreliable sources. A third editor thinks there is nothing wrong with the new version of the article and is trying to make a "compromise".

The above is an unsigned comment by user:mikebe

The above is innacurate in a number of respects.


 * Despite mikebe's claims about "Lack of warning" there was prior disucssion of user:SilkTork's change.


 * Tripel was rewritten by user:SilkTork, an experienced editor and Admin.


 * That rewrite was |approved by at least one editor uninvolved in the current dispute, user:HelloAnnyong


 * User user:patto1ro reverted the rewrite with and edit summary to the effect that it is inaccurate.


 * I reverted to SilkTork's article with an edit summary requesting discussion on the talk page.


 * user:mikebe reverted back to the old article, with an identical edit summary to user:patto1ro's and no attempt at discussion.

I have subsequently made very considerable efforts to negotiate with user:mikebe, with a low level of response from him. He inists that user:SilkTork's article must be reverted because it contains "not a word of truth". He has declined repeated requests to specify the accuracy problems he alleges in the article. The closest he has got to doing so was in complaint filed inappropirately on the admin noticeboards. Copying it back to talk:Tripel here I was able to discern two issues that could be actioned. and a further two that were in need of RS. I requested RS for these, which user:mikebe has so far not supplied. I also analysed the odler version of the article mikebe wants to revert to an detailed a number of inaccuracies on the talk page here. Mikebe has made no reponse to the analysis.

Durng this process several bouts of commentary and mediation have occured. The RS's of SilkTorks article, which mikebe objects to have been judged accurate (the article was already supported by consensus at the outset, of coure). Another third party--and Admin-- has left a warning on mikebe's talk page regarding his atttitude of ownership to Tripel. Mikebe has made an attempt to criticise my behaviour on the adminstrator's noticeboard, which was swiftly rejected.

I have repeatedly asked mikebe whether he intends to edit co-operatively. He has never given a clear affirmative.

mikebe has a history of disruptive editing on the Beer pages, and has received a warning for it from an Admin.

1Z (talk) 14:39, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Who is involved?
Just a list of the users involved. For example:


 * User:mikebe
 * User:peterdjones

What is the dispute?
The user with whom there is a dispute thinks the old article should be integrated into the new, though the new has the problems mentioned above.

THe above is an unsigned comment by mikebe/

I have always been willing to amend the new article where an innacuracy can be substantiated and have said so on the talk page. I have even attempted to amend the new article to meet mikebe's objections: however he reverted that version with a curt edit summary and no talk page discusssion. Most of mikebe's objections to the new article are sweeping an not backed by consenses or RS, and so cannot be acted on within normal guidelines. 1Z (talk) 14:44, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

What would you like to change about this?
The other user has, so far, declined to provide specifics -- what information in the new article he thinks is valid for inclusion. He has also not behaved in good faith. For example: [][][]

The above is an unsigned comment by mikebe.

I think all the information in the new article is valid except where it demonstrably invalid -- two or three sentences at worst. The article is supported by consenses and the RSing has been judged accurate by a third party. Since it is mikebe who wishes to change the status quo, the burden is on him to prove innacuracy. Note here and here where I carefully analyse the merits of the two versions. 1Z (talk) 14:50, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

How do you think we can help?
I think there needs to be a referee here. He/she needs to elicit what the other user wants to change and has to listen to both sides if a challenge is raised to the validity of a source or point.

The abover is an unsigned comment by mikebe.

As the "other user" I want to keep all the accurate information from both articles. Mikebe keeps reverting the newer and more detailed article without specifying what he considers innacurate. (I make four requests for information on the talk page). The only two concrete issues I was ever able to elicit from mikebe could easily be incorporated into the new page. I demonstrated this, and mikebe reverted the page with a less than polite edit summary.

Mediators should attempt to elicit a promise from mikebe that he will abide by their decision before continuning. They should note he has never offered a promise of co-operation in repsonse to my many requests.

1Z (talk) 14:55, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

If a rewrite/merger does take place, it would be most useful to have third party overlooking the process. 1Z (talk) 16:22, 7 August 2009 (UTC)