Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Christian terrorism

Questions about the process
I recently suggested on the mediation page that, when discussion of a source is past the point of initial discussion, "most of the participating editors have said what we believe, and have responded a few times back and forth to one another. We are bumping up against a wall where editors read the same words in opposite ways, and I can tell you from experience that this will keep on happening for each successive source. At that point, maybe you could pose specific questions to each editor, and ask that we each reply directly to you, instead of continuing to argue with each other. (I'd also like to see all the participating editors participate, something that is not currently happening.) Your questions could be something like: "Editor1, you have told Editor2 xyz, but it sounds like Editor2 is asking you abc. Please tell me what your answer to abc is." And you could ask the corresponding question to Editor2, about what Editor1 was trying to convey. That would help make the process less personalized, and would help keep editors focused on the matters at hand, instead of talking past each other."

I would like you to please consider doing this. (Note that I am not asking you to express your own opinions about the merits of arguments.) If you disagree with my suggestion, please explain why.

I am making this suggestion based upon my considerable experience with discussions about the Christian terrorism page. If all we do is decide that we did not agree about Aghai and then move on to the next source, I can predict with certainty that the same thing is going to happen with our next source discussion, and the next one after that, and so on. Then, at the end, we will look back and be forced to conclude that the mediation effort did not succeed. That would be most unfortunate.

Thank you in advance for considering my suggestion. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:11, 26 January 2015 (UTC)


 * This is awkward to say, but I feel that we are in a pretty much DIY process, and I was looking for more active mediation. Not sure if my expectation was realistic, or if Kiethbob's style is more hands off, amidst a range of mediation styles. Keithbob, would you please let us know the roadmap of the path we are on, and say a bit about your style? Thanks  Jytdog (talk) 14:03, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi folks and thanks for your questions. There are two things going on here I think. One is that over the past month my real life responsibilities have increased and prevented me from visiting WP 7 days per week. I'm usually on WP every day but it seems when I miss a day, that is the time when the conversation at our mediation heats up and moves more quickly and my absence is more noticeable. Nonetheless I am reading and following along in a timely way. Keep in mind the official description of Mediation is:
 * The issue or issues in dispute will be established;
 * The positions with regards to each issue will be established;
 * The arguments for and against each position will be set out, where possible discerning the common interests of participants;
 * Sensible alternatives between each arguments will be proposed (including sandboxing or producing multiple "drafts" of the article(s) or section(s) which are disputed);
 * Arguments for and against each alternative will be set out; and
 * A final agreed-on alternative will be selected.

I think we are on track for all of those steps.

The second item is my style of mediation. I see my role as providing a format and environment that is conducive to collaboration and possible consensus. This includes establishing and maintaining order. Disallowing incivility, bullying etc. Lastly, my role is to uphold the policies and guidelines of WP.

What I don't do is a) give my own opinions b) attempt to force people to participate, toe the line, continue to show up, answer questions etc. Mediation is voluntary. Editors may participate to any degree they wish. Also...... if full or partial consensus is reached it is non-binding. It is this non-binding aspect that reinforces the fact that mediation is not 'ArbCom for content' but rather a forum that is conducive for resolution but by no means forces or guarantees one.

You may be comforted to know that I've asked other members of the Committee to keep an eye on the case and make suggestions to me when they feel the need. I generally take a hands-off approach unless participants are violating WP content/behavior guidelines or are being disruptive to the resolution process. At the same time, nothing is going unnoticed. I plan to give an observational summary along with my personal perspective and recommendations, at the end of the mediation regardless of whether there is full, partial, or no, consensus. I understand that this mediation is long, arduous and at times frustrating. Meanwhile, we are making slow progress. I appreciate your patience and perseverance and your willingness to discuss, compromise and work towards resolution. Peace!-- — Keithbob • Talk  • 20:53, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * that was a super helpful explanation. thanks for taking the time. Jytdog (talk) 22:16, 28 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you for taking the time to provide a detailed and thoughtful reply. It's interesting to me to learn that other members of the Mediation Committee are looking in on the discussion, and keeping in touch with you. I've participated in mediation in the past, and it does seem to me that your style is more "hands off" (per Jytdog) than mediators I've worked with in the past. I'll also observe that the participating editors really did make more progress in the last day or two than I had expected, and that's a very good thing. (I'll even stick my neck out and predict that the next two sources, Purpura and Dyson, will prove easier, before we hit a couple that will prove very difficult to discuss.) On the downside, that progress occurred at a stage in the discussion when one of us became so distressed by the discussion that he nearly dropped out in exasperation.


 * You said, in part, that you do not see your role as forcing editors to answer questions. I don't want you to actually force that either. But you also said that you do see your role, in part, as disallowing bullying etc. Based on what I've seen so far, what you have been doing is allowing editors to say whatever they say, and then hatting some things after editors have moved on. That is not so much disallowing as cleaning up after the fact. When I see good editors thinking of quitting because they feel chronically disrespected, I think the situation requires a little more support than it has been getting. You did not list it specifically, but I will presume to suggest that another role that you have is to do whatever you can, to improve the likelihood of consensus. Not a guarantee, but help in improving the likelihood. My suggestion of finding a way for editors to address you, instead of addressing each other, is one way to make the discussion less of an argument, make it less personal. I've been in other mediations where participants were each assigned their own subsection for making their comments, instead of arguing with one another in the same discussion thread. I'm certainly not demanding of you that you do anything in particular, but I think that, for the most part, all of us participating have been building walls of text without necessarily feeling like we are listening to one another. That was happening at the article talk page, before I requested this mediation. I expected, reasonably I think, that the mediation would be more than a continuation of what was happening at the article talk page.


 * I think there's a good chance that what we have been doing will be good enough as we discuss Purpura and Dyson. But I'll predict that we will hit the wall when we get to Schbley, and it will go from bad to worse after that. I have no problem at all with taking a "let's wait and see" position for now. But if things get difficult at some point down the road, my sincere request would be that you consider some changes. I know you want me to be honest with you, and that's my honest opinion. Thank you, and please understand that I am very grateful for your help. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:47, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your responses. A couple of things to clarify.
 * First, I've "invited" other members of the committee to look in on the case and make suggestions if they feel to. I don't have the sense that any of them have read the whole case, and many of them may not have read any of it. But I have made the invitation and a few have responded with comments. I don't want to mislead anyone into thinking that the entire Mediation Committee is watching this case because I feel sure they are not. But there are a few that have given it a look now and then.
 * Second, I misspoke when I said I disallow incivility. I can only react to misbehavior I can't disallow it. I can minimize the effect of misbehavior via hatting etc. There is built up tension in a long term dispute so outbursts happen from time to time. If misbehavior is chronic and/or intentional then that is another issue. For the moderator its all very subjective and a bit like controlled chaos sometimes. There are always some participants who are more civil than others. Its not fair, but that is how it is. Those editors have their self respect as their only reward.  :-) -- — Keithbob •  Talk  • 22:25, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I appreciate those points responding to what I said. Of course, another part of what I said, and a more important one, is what I suggested about waiting and seeing, and being open to finding ways to improve the likelihood (not a guarantee) of consensus, if or when we hit a roadblock in the discussion. Watch particularly when we come to Schbley, and after. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:31, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. I understand your concerns. Let's see how it goes. -- — Keithbob • Talk  • 18:57, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Insult
TFD I would really appreciate it if each of you stopped stating your opinions as fact - TFD when you write things like "you are not reading the source correctly" - in the voice of WP:The Truth, it is infuriating to me. Please own your interpretation and instead say, " in my view, you are not reading the source correctly". And Collect, your consistent use of "um" comes across to me like pure sarcasm. Unpacked it says to me "gee what you just wrote is so incredibly fucking stupid that I really don't know what to say but let me try to respond somehow." Overall, I don't recognize my ideas when either of you reflect them back to me directly or in questions - I feel like both of you are not even trying to understand what I write here, but instead are almost willfully twisting what I say into something moronic. Please try to understand what I write in good faith. Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 14:03, 1 February 2015 (UTC) (striking, pointless. Jytdog (talk) 21:10, 1 February 2015 (UTC))
 * Thank you for the lecture. I suggest you examine an optic beam. Collect (talk) 14:17, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what that means. But I asked, and that is all I can do. Jytdog (talk) 15:00, 1 February 2015 (UTC) (striking Jytdog (talk) 21:11, 1 February 2015 (UTC))
 * for fuck's sake, i think i just figured it out. i think you are citing the biblical quote about look at the beam in your own eye before you criticize someone else. how contorted and unnecessary.  this is hard enough without indirection.  Please actually deal with what I said. If you feel like i am not understanding you please just say that. I will say ahead of that, that I am trying to understand you and I am sorry that i am failing. Jytdog (talk) 17:14, 1 February 2015 (UTC) (striking, pointless Jytdog (talk) 21:10, 1 February 2015 (UTC))

Keithbob: Please consider my suggestion of having editors address you, instead of addressing one another, in this context. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:43, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * (PS: Above, I predicted that the Purpura discussion would be relatively easy. Silly me. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:44, 1 February 2015 (UTC))