Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-10-27/Cosimo III de' Medici, Grand Duke of Tuscany

Where is the dispute?
The dispute is located at Talk:Cosimo III de' Medici, Grand Duke of Tuscany, and involves all the sections of the page, bar the GA review.

Who is involved?

 * User:Taksen
 * User:Jack1755
 * User:Laurinavicius


 * Others users have commented on the conflict, and their user names can be found on Talk:Cosimo III de' Medici, Grand Duke of Tuscany.

What is the dispute?
The dispute regards:
 * 1) User:Taksen's introduction of copyrighted material into the article. (He has said that he has "copied some of their [authors] sentences & references" into articles. However, he later states "[I] did mark the sentence but the wrong kind of quotation marks").
 * 2) User:Taksen is a non-native speaker of English, ergo his edits oft contain malformed sentences.
 * 3) User:Taksen denounces Wikipedia guidelines and policies as "tribal rules", and describes them as akin to the "G[erman] D[emocratic] R[epublic]".
 * 4) User:Jack1755 and User:Laurinavicius have raised User:Taksen's non-compliance with guidelines, but User:Taksen refuses to acknowledge it -- "I can add rather unknown or new information if they are well sourced".
 * 5) User:Taksen persists in adding immaterial information, depsite unrelenting reproaches, in his attempts to make the article more "interesting".
 * 6) User:Taksen refuses to accept that Wikipedia articles should not be used as sources for other Wikipedia articles, per Verifiability. His responses to User:Laurinavicius' pointing this out are as follows: "If I understand you well Wikipedia articles are not considered to be reliable sources. We should not trust its content? What are we doing here, why don't we go milk cows or dig peat?" and "I wonder if Jimmy Wales likes what you wrote. If he does, it is about time to leave this pretty but sinking ship soon."
 * 7) User:Taksen's extreme incivility, particularly the biting sarcastic insults that can commonly be found throughout his edits. He constantly violates Civility and No personal attacks with these insults. He even goes to the extent of stating that User:Jack1755 and User:Laurinavicius (who are both in their teens) are "extremely frustrating", as they are "teenagers with crazy information and without references".
 * 8) Lastly, User:Taksen has responded to all of these complaints, which have previously been address on the talk page, by simply stating the following: "I dont like to spent to much time on this discussion. I'm waisting my time. I can add rather unknown or new information if they are well sourced, and this seemes to be the problem. It seems to me Wikipedia began to cycle backwards. Wikipedians became for some reason more conservative than necessary. And they do have a problem, with rules that became quite complicated; sometimes it reminds me to the GDR. I cannot believe the rules are more important than the information. Not everybody likes to study all these different tribal rules, sorry. I'm around here for four years, I missed something."

User:Jack1755 and User:Laurinavicius have raised these issues, as Cosimo III has, as of 18 October 2009, attained good article status. They fear that Taksen's edits may be grounds for revocation of this status.

What would you like to change about this?
User:Jack1755 and User:Laurinavicius would like User:Surtsicna's proposal (as featured on the talk page) of reverting the article to the version as of 18 October 2009 implemented. User:Taksen may then discuss his prospective additions with other users on the talk page, where they can comb through the relevant data, and remove grammatical errors, copyright problems and etc., before insertation.

How do you think we can help?

 * The Ladies and gentlement of the Mediation Cabel may assist in the matter by making some sort of pronouncement on User:Taksen's recent additions to Cosimo III. I sincerely thank everyone for their assistance. -- Jack1755 (talk) 00:05, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I concur with Jack here. I sincerely hope that the Mediation Cabal can swiftly end this dispute, which will allow those involved to re-focus their efforts from disputing with one another to improving the article. I thank you all for your assistance in this matter. My regards to all, Laurinavicius (talk) 01:10, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with what is written above, gives a good view on our argument, except no. 7. That is a misinterpretation. I did not want to accuse the two mentioned aboved, but all the others kids (?) that drop suspect, foolish messages in the articles. I dont understand the word "depsite", it is not in my dictionary.Taksen (talk) 07:00, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Just to let you know, Taksen, that was a typographical error. Unfortunately, when I cobbled the issues together last night (before Laurinavicius was kind enough to elaborate) it was past midnight, and as I had to catch a flight early in the morning, scant time was allowed. -- Jack1755 (talk) 21:11, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Mediator notes
I will be glad to take this case. Reubzz (talk) 12:50, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It is good to see that all parties appear willing already for mediation in the discussion above. Reubzz (talk) 12:56, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Administrative notes
Taksen is the only party of the 3 to make no responce yet as to whether he is willing to proceed with the mediation process. Until that occurs, this process cannot go forward. Thankfully though, the editing war on the page in question has ended as the heat has cooled down. --Reubzz (talk) 23:54, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Discussion
My first impressions after reading through the talk page and all discussion relating to the page is that it is upsetting that an editorial dispute has arisen in such a way. It is clear that all parties seek to find the best way to make the article great and that through some controversial actions taken by some of the parties, the fire under this conflict has grown.

Once I recieve confirmation from all parties that they are fine with the Mediation process to go forward, I will be glad to begin civil discussion so that this conflict can come to a swift end. Reubzz (talk) 17:08, 5 November 2009 (UTC)