Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Zoophilia

Zoophilia
 view edit delete watch Filed: 23:02, December 5 2006 (UTC)

Articles involved
Principle articles:
 * Zoophilia
 * Zoophilia and health
 * Zoosexuality

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted:
There has been significant discussion on the talk pages of several articles, and whilst the time frame is short, the sense is that the matter is close to irreconcilable, due to a near-complete failure of good faith, combined with concerns over agenda-pushing. We have discussed the situation as adults, but the sense of us both is, the concerns over inappropriate editorial conduct and policy issues are rapidly bringing the article to serious loggerheads, the subject is rapidly approaching a situation where edits and reverts without good communication on the basis of policy breach and NPOV will be the logical next step (we already have many of these), and we wish to obtain mediation before what is probably the inevitable end of the matter, while we are still able to reasonably have some hope of reconciliation of perspectives.

Issues to be mediated
Issues user:FT2 has with user:Skoppensboer:
 * Editing to make a point
 * Selectively choosing sources and content according to whether it fits the editor's personal stated agenda and feelings or not. (WP:NPOV)
 * Aggressive accusations and allegations of bad faith rather than collaborative discussion
 * Lack of civility and rapid recourse to personal attack
 * This in a subject where he has a lack of knowledge and a viewpoint that is verging on low grade POV agenda/warfare, a stable and FAC reviewed article, and yet as a new editor has shown hostility from the start in respect of POV and begun making major POV-impact and other changes.
 * More than one editor on more than one other article has indicated (sometimes strongly) that in their view this person has generated these sort of concerns elsewhere too. So it is unlikely to be a temporary phenomenon or limited just to this article, or to myself.

Issues user:Skoppensboer has with user:FT2:
 * I do not have the time to engage in a long explication of this kerfuffle here, and I see I'm already in danger of being overwhelmed by FT2's verbose style right at the start. I refer the mediator to the actual talk pages where I've made my points. I don't wish or have the time to rewrite them here. Needless to say, I deny all of the points FT2 tries to make above.

Additional issues to be mediated
Issues perceived by user:FT2:
 * Skoppensboer seems to feel strongly that Wikipedia should not present "negative" acts in a "positive" light in any way (so to speak). He has cited such a view as a basis for removing verified or long standing information, often with derogatory comments or an offhand comment as to a lack of need for it, etc.
 * He also seems to be trying to impose his own version of SPOV.

Issues perceived by user:Skoppensboer:
 * The issue I have with FT2 is that his/her editing always comes from one biased angle. Absolutely every edit he/she's made on my work serves to minimize and normalize aberrant behaviour that could threaten health. Yes, shock, but even in this non-judgemental world, some behaviors are still aberrant from a professional medical POV. I refer you to the various talk pages again. Please note that the quoted "negative" above is not my word. But I do have an issue with a disorder (for that is what the psychiatric profession all over the world classifies it as -- a "disorder") being presented as a charming alternate lifestyle, and with an article in which the health/disease section is almost non-existent, inane and frankly wrong, as it was. I tried to beef the health aspects up and FT2 has opposed me tooth and nail, if you'll excuse the pun. Read the various pages, & the discussions. FT2 has raised trivial objection after trivial objection, edited my work without any attempt at consultation, and he/she clearly has a disturbing sense of ownership of the topic on WP.


 * I wish to quote someone else's views on the Zoophilia page, and note that the problems highlighted in this quote are what got me started on the zoophilia page in the first place, attempting to insert balance, and even though I now have a separate page for the health issue, the party responsible for the tone of the original page is intent on pursuing me and keeping the tone in lockstep with the master article. Here's the apposite quote: "In my opinion it needs severe editing to the point that it would practically unrecognizeable from its current incarnation. It should also be very considerably shorter than it is, since the bulk of it consists of unnecessary romanticizing of zoophilia. .... this current article is still a terrible embarrassment to wikipedia. In fact I actually found out about it because someone linked it as an example of how wikipedia can get really biased due to POV manipulation by obsessive biased authors with an agenda to wage. In this case, internet bestialists using their group-jargon to butter up the article with heavy romanticizing and POV abuse over a prolonged campaign attempting to 'normalize' an incredibly biased article. To me this would be like creationists manipulating the "science" wiki page to include frequent counter-arguments against the scientific method. Or as previously stated, like pedophiles manipulating the wiki pedophilia page to make child molestation seem more normalized. This is wrong, and I hope someone with a strong sense of neutrality puts their foot down to stop it. Additionally, I would like to add that the current wikipedia entry for "homosexuality" is only slightly shorter than this one is - and that one is currently flagged for being too long. Something is terribly, disagreeably wrong here, and it needs to be addressed as soon as possible.".


 * My suggestion for a resolution is that I maintain the Zoophilia and health page in large part, since I've so far written it almost from scratch, while FT2 can continue to lengthen and embroider the gigantic main Zoophilia page. The mediator needs to carefully read the Zoophilia and health page and decide if the page really does show the serious bias and ignorance of which Ft2 accuses me. If the mediator instead sees a pretty balanced and fair page, maybe even an excellent page, then mediate by advising this other editor to keep maintaining his/her own work. A division of tasks is always a good idea, and too many cooks etc.

Parties' agreement to mediate

 * All parties should sign below, indicating that they agree to mediate the issue. If any party fails to sign, or if a party indicates they do not agree, then the mediation will be rejected. Only signatures and "agree" or "disagree" should appear here; any comments will be removed.


 * Agree FT2 (Talk 23:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree Skoppensboer 00:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Decision of the Mediation Committee
Accepted.
 * For the Mediation Committee, Essjay   ( Talk )  05:50, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * While I am not a member of the Mediation Committee formally, I would be willing to take on this case if he Committee and parties in the dispute would be agreeable to this. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge aka "Wiz"  (Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality) 21:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * As per Wiz's consent, I will be assisting in this case in an attempt to get back into the Mediation "swing-of-things". Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 01:06, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I think the first matter of business would be agreeing on a venue for this mediation. May I ask if the parties wish to have this done in public, or in private?  Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge aka "Wiz"  (Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality) 19:49, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * If FT2 would like to continue with this despite our recent rapprochement, either is okay with me. Skopp   ( Talk )  22:52, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I suggest this request for mediation be dropped. Unless FT2 objects, please delete this case. Skopp   ( Talk )  18:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)