Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2011-01-12/Georgism

Where is the dispute?
Several Articles : http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Henry_George&diff=prev&oldid=98599435 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=American_Monetary_Institute&diff=prev&oldid=182077522 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Georgism&diff=prev&oldid=300020159 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Georgism&diff=prev&oldid=299028068 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Way_to_Happiness&diff=prev&oldid=315443336 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Local_currency&diff=prev&oldid=182470175

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


 * User:JohnAugust
 * User:Cirt

What is the dispute?
While I made my edits in good faith, Cirt's approach has been to deny what seems clearly apparent and arguable - particularly as the threshold for a lack of good faith is higher than some arbitrary judgement, rather involving clear evidence.

A separate issue is that I believe the edits were NPOV and worthwhile, while Cirt did express a concern about conflict of interest. However, there has been a negative dialogue, so I've not been able to justify the edits, let alone get to any detail. I would wish to make arguments backing my edits, both individually and as an overall package, and have them listened to at some real level, even if things still do not go my way.

I could say a lot more about why I feel that Cirt has refused acknowledge real point I have put forward, why I feel his edits were done without reflection, consideration or an attempt to communicate, or why I feel my edits are worthwhile /appropriate/NPOV, but only wish to put forward proportional content this stage.

If more is appropriate at this point, please let me know.

What would you like to change about this?
I would like Cirt to be willing to listen to my position, and perhaps have the edits agreed to (in fact, though, this last point is a bit peripheral. I'm over the detail, but I'm feeling very cold and sick about the whole experience). But, worse case, I would like Cirt to develop some empathy for the effect that his approaches to edits and communication have on others, and take a more interactive approach to communication.

How do you think we can help?
Review mine and Cirt's positions and give another view on the issue. While you can check our dialogue, I would like to say more than has been said; I stopped because I did not think it worth going further. If you're sympathetic, which I hope you will be, please point that out to Cirt. If you're not, well, equally say so to me.

Comments by JohnAugust
JohnAugust (talk) 12:36, 12 January 2011 (UTC) In reply to Cirt of 12 January 2011 :

1. I had no idea that there was an expectation to participate in lesser forms of dispute resolution. Keep in mind that I am relatively ignorant of Wikipedia processes, as compared to Cirt who is clearly a lot more familiar with the processes than me. I should point out I have made a definite effort, but I do not see how a reasonable comparison can be drawn between me and someone who has made many edits over a very long time.

I resent the sentiment "escalating", as though there was a deliberate intent. I may have done something out of sequence through a lack of familiarity. Further, my last attempts at an exchange with Cirt met with a lack of engagement.

2. There were several edits. In all but one, I noted my intention to make the edit on the talk page beforehand. These edits were done long before Cirt took an interest. My first edit was on 5 January 2007. Cirt made his first edits to mine in August 2009, if I have the dates correct.

In one case, I made an edit to the talk page at the same time, with the sentiment "I hope this is OK". I did try to engage, I would have engaged, if there had been comments on the relevant talk pages.

For the particular page Cirt cites, I did put forward a justification of my edit, but have not followed through on it, fearing the escalation that would bring. I have not in fact reversed any of the edits Cirt made without consultation (I did this in one case). The point is, it is not just the page Cirt cites, there's a lot of other pages which Cirt edited at roughly the same time.

Cirt puts forward a misleading history.

3. I did not. OK, if I am expected or supposed to do so, I am happy to. Keep in mind my dialogue with Cirt did not give me an idea of options.

4. I had no idea this means of dispute resolution was available.

5. There are several issues here. A first is that even if what Cirt says is true, the means by which he brought it to my attention confused me and was insensitive, and he showed no willingness to engage in dialogue to justify his position, and did not presume good faith. The second is that many pages have a warning at the top of the page, putting editors on notice. Third, it is not the only issue. There is more than one page involved.

6. This was an attempt to engage with Cirt and express my frustration. My first post did not make any statements about taking things further, it only requested an apology. Later posts did talk about taking things further, but I think it is misleading by Cirt to call it a "threat". Certainly, Cirt made no discernible attempt to engage with the material I was putting forward - just a total out of hand dismissive approach.

That does not seem like a "threat" to me. Perhaps we need to better define what "threat" means.

Further, I was not aware of the stages Cirt outlined. I was doing what seemed reasonable to me. I noted the mediation on Cirt's talk page as positively as I could, I did not leave it for him to find out himself.

7. This mediation may well be premature. However, I have difficulty believing that Cirt would be an objective person to assess this, based on past exchanges. In any case, I would be happy to accept Lord Roem's assessment.

Further, let me also note :

A. In making this application, I was of necessity brief. There is a lot more detail I could bring to bear, and if I were to do so, it might well be a good case against what Cirt puts forward. But how much detail to put in is always a difficult choice.

B. It may take time for me to reply, but I am very interested in pursuing this. Please give me an idea on any expected timeframes for replies.

````
 * JohnAugust, may I suggest seeking a Third Opinion or opening an RFC on this matter, to have imput from other editors? I think that may be a better route than the filing of a mediation case. Thoughts? -- Lord Roem (talk) 03:42, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Lord Roem, I am concerned that Cirt has made comments that are demonstrably untrue - I can walk you through that claim if need be - and has made distortions where there's some little truth. Further, I did try to talk about matters on Cirt's talk page as suggested on various Wikipedia pages, which Cirt has now interpreted as a "threat" rather than a necessary stage in the process. I am also concerned about Cirt's ability to presume good faith - that's one of the things at the heart of my application - while at the same time the processes you mention assume that good faith will be presumed. Communications may have broken down to the point where the approaches you mention will not be effective. At the same time, I'll acknowledge that Cirt has made worthy contributions to Wikipedia - just it seems to me the "collateral damage" has been excessive and unrecognised. I'm sure so in my particular case - and I would not be surprised if it were true for others, too.


 * I cannot comment on what is "appropriate" at a given stage, and must defer to other neutral parties on this point.


 * However, of the options, Third Opinion does seem the better as the issues range over many issues and pages, rather than being narrowly confined, if we go ahead with it.


 * If you've considered what I've written above and still feel that Third Opinion would be the way to go, I'll accept your view and file at that page. Thank you for your thoughts so far.

JohnAugust (talk) 20:12, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Comments by Cirt
-- Cirt (talk) 14:59, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) is attempting to escalate this situation, having made no prior attempts at lesser forms of dispute resolution.
 * 2) JohnAugust did not actively engage in or attempt to resolve issues with article talk page discussion, having only ever in the history of his edits made 2 total edits to the article's talk page
 * 3) JohnAugust did not attempt to seek out dispute resolution with the Third Opinion process.
 * 4) JohnAugust did not attempt to engage in dispute resolution via article talk page centralized Request for Comment process.
 * 5) Edits by JohnAugust to the page in question, have included unsourced additions
 * 6) Remaining edits by the user have included a "Request for Apology" posted to my user talk page, and made threats of escalating dispute resolution   . He then indeed proceeded to escalate the matter here, without first attempting: 1) Article talk page discussion, 2) Third opinion process, or 3) Article talk page RFC process.
 * 7) This mediation is premature.

Response to Cirt
I will ask JohnAugust to respond to Cirt's statements about this being premature. If this is the case, and Cirt does not want to proceed with mediation, the case will be closed. -- Lord Roem (talk) 22:42, 12 January 2011 (UTC)