Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Ghouta chemical attack

Resolved:

successful

This mediation case is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this case page.

---

This page has been removed from search engines' indexes.

Ghouta chemical attack, mediation

The filing party (the editor who opened this request) will add the basic details for this dispute below.

Editors involved in these disputes

1. Mnnlaxer (talk · contribs) – filing party
2. Volunteer Marek (talk · contribs)
3. Erlbaeko (talk · contribs)
4. My very best wishes (talk · contribs)
5. Kudzu1 (talk · contribs)
6. Darouet (talk · contribs)
7. Bobrayner (talk · contribs)
8. VQuakr (talk · contribs)

Articles affected by these disputes

1. Ghouta chemical attack (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Other attempts at resolving these disputes that you have attempted

• Talk:Ghouta chemical attack#False flag motivation - actual content of edit war
• Talk:Ghouta chemical attack#FRINGE, WEIGHT, UNDUE
• Talk:Ghouta chemical attack#Blatant misrepresentation of a source

Issues to be mediated

What is this dispute about? What sections, sentences, or issues in the article(s) can you not agree on? If you are the editor who opened this request, list these issues to be mediated under "Primary issues". If you did not open this request, you can add additional issues to be mediated under "Additional issues". The issues to be mediated would be properly agreed upon later, if this request for mediation is accepted.

Primary issues (added by the filing party)

1. Motivation section
2. Possible rebel responsibility

I am happy to try to better define the issues to be discussed, but thought that involved editors understand the dispute in these broad content categories. The policies involved are WP:FRINGE and WP:WEIGHT.

Additional issues (added by other parties)

• This is obviously a continuation of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive173#Erlbaeko. Erlbaeko escaped sanction there, and has continued their crusade. Although there has been extensive misuse of sources, I would emphasise the need to examine editor behaviour rather than individual fragments of content. bobrayner (talk) 22:29, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

• Erlbaeko is fresh from a trip to Arbcom; has separately been blocked for editwarring on this very article; put spurious editwarring tags on the talkpages of people who removed their POV rant; and Erlbaeko's preferred approach to sourcing has been rejected at noticeboards. Meanwhile Mnnlaxer too has knowingly broken the 1RR rule and is looking for somebody else to perform reverts on their behalf. In this case, mediation which examines content but not conduct would at best be a sticking plaster on an open fracture. The best solution is to sanction POV-pushers who repeatedly misrepresent content, cherrypick sources, shop around forums, and badger ideological opponents &c. I would happily present a lot more diffs at any venue which offers such a solution. If that's not going to happen here, then I'm not going to sink lots of hours into this case just to validate somebody's notion that it's strictly a content disagreement. bobrayner (talk) 21:28, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

First, the Mediation Chairperson below said if you "are concerned with conduct interfering with the mediation, that mediators are enabled under policy to take steps to prevent that from happening." If Erlbaeko cannot participate civilly, then we can deal with that. There are serious differences of opinion over policies FRINGE and WEIGHT at the root of this dispute. The conduct occurs because of the policy dispute, not the other way around.

Second, I responded you your question about the debate I am still attempting before this Mediation is rejected or accepted on the article's talk page Talk:Ghouta chemical attack#Mediation. The overall point is to engage in a debate to achieve consensus. The question to you is will you participate? Mnnlaxer (talk) 22:05, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

In parallel with asking other people to perform reverts on your behalf, you have repeatedly instructed me to remove my concerns about conduct, and said "Mediation is not about conduct". With that in mind, forgive me if I am skeptical that mediation would solve the conduct problem. bobrayner (talk) 00:11, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with asking someone to self revert. As, for the Mediation, what do you have to lose? Mnnlaxer (talk) 00:31, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Bobrayner, you added yourself to this mediation and agreed to take part, but are now refusing to accept TransporterMan's request that we stick to content here. You have never once contributed to Talk:Ghouta_chemical_attack, but have edit warred on the page. Unless you want to address content issues, would you consider removing yourself from mediation? -Darouet (talk) 02:39, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Actually, Erlbaeko invited him Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Ghouta chemical attack. Which is fine with me, if he wants to participate. The goal is to get some policy issues resolved so the article can avoid more editing warring. Any further accusations of bad conduct could scuttle the Mediation Committee from taking the case. Mnnlaxer (talk) 03:02, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

OK, I agree that mediation is the best way forward. -Darouet (talk) 03:11, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

• If this becomes a question of behavior, bobrayner's has been especially unproductive: no talk page contribution, combined with repeated blanking of sourced content / edit warring in a manner consistent with the worst of POV-warriors. Erlbaeko is correct to initiate a content discussion. -Darouet (talk) 03:16, 8 June 2015 (UTC) Struck with the understanding that this mediation will not focus on behavior, but only content.-Darouet (talk) 20:33, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

I have informed both Bobrayner and Darouet that Mediation is for content, not conduct, and asked that they remove these additional issues. Also, FYI for all, Erlbaeko has been blocked for 48 hours for violating 1RR policy, ending basically 10 June 2015. Mnnlaxer (talk) 16:41, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

• I only made 3 edits on this page so far and expressed my "3rd opinion" already [1][2]. I am not really interested in this subject (this is just one of many hundred pages I occasionally edited), and perhaps I will not be around in the near future. My very best wishes (talk) 12:42, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Note that the continual retiring and then not retiring of My very best wishes has been mentioned and criticized on numerous occasions. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:30, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Parties' agreement to mediation

If you are a named party, please sign below and indicate whether you agree or refuse to participate in mediation. Remember that all editors are obliged to resolve disputes about content through discussion, mediation, or other similar means. If you do not wish to participate in mediation, you must arrange another form of dispute resolution. Comments and questions should be made underneath the numbered list below, to avoid confusion.

1. Agree. Mnnlaxer (talk) 23:01, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
2. Agree. -Kudzu1 (talk) 01:13, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
3. Agree. -Darouet (talk) 03:59, 7 June 2015 (UTC) [Please see Chairperson's Note, below.]
4. Agree. Erlbaeko (talk) 05:27, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
5. Agree. bobrayner (talk) 12:48, 7 June 2015 (UTC) [Please see Chairperson's Note, below.]
6. Agree. See however my comment above. My very best wishes (talk) 12:42, 10 June 2015 (UTC) [Please see my note below]
7. Agree again, understanding TransporterMan's requirement. -Darouet (talk) 20:31, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
8. Agree, but retain the right to withdraw in case this turns out to be a total waste of time.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:16, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
9. Agree. VQuakr (talk) 15:33, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

@Andrevan: and/or @TransporterMan: I would like the mediator or the chairman to clarify if this mediation is open for all or if it is exclusive for those parties that have agreed to participate. Erlbaeko (talk) 16:56, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Decision of the Mediation Committee

This section should only be edited by a mediator. The Mediation Committee's representative will indicate in due course whether the request is accepted (meaning a mediator will be assigned) or rejected (meaning you will have to try a different type of dispute resolution). If the mediator asks you a question in this section, you may edit here.

• Chairperson's note: In light of what they have said, above, I am not going to count Bobrayner's and Darouet's acceptances unless they re-accept, above, with the understanding that conduct issues will not be mediated here. Formal Mediation is for content issues only. They may re-agree by either so stating or removing the strikeout that I've put over their current agreement; if they wish to change to disagree, please add that after the strikeout. However, I will say to them that if they are concerned with conduct interfering with the mediation, that mediators are enabled under policy to take steps to prevent that from happening. If, however, they wish to deal with conduct instead of, or before, mediating, then that will not happen here. For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:48, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Bobrayner says, above, "The best solution is to sanction POV-pushers who repeatedly misrepresent content, cherrypick sources, shop around forums, and badger ideological opponents &c. I would happily present a lot more diffs at any venue which offers such a solution. If that's not going to happen here, then I'm not going to sink lots of hours into this case just to validate somebody's notion that it's strictly a content disagreement." That is, indeed, not going to happen here, so I am going to take that comment as a "reject," though I would say to him that it is my experience if the underlying content issues to a dispute are resolved that the conduct issues ordinarily go away simply because there's nothing more to argue about. Still, participation here is always voluntary, so it is his call whether or not to participate. Also, regarding current status, unless something happens in the next couple of days which causes this request to be withdrawn or some of the parties to change their acceptances to rejections (and by saying that I'm not foreseeing or suggesting that I have reason to believe that might happen, just being thorough) this case will clearly be accepted for mediation and will simply proceed without the participation of those who do not care to participate. At this point, we're just waiting to see if Volunteer Marek cares to join in. For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:45, 10 June 2015 (UTC) (Chairperson)

I would like to withdraw from this mediation after confrontational comments by Mnnlaxer [3], [4]. My very best wishes (talk) 14:29, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Accept. This case is accepted for mediation. I will now request a member of the committee to volunteer to mediate the case. If no volunteer comes forward within two weeks (it might actually be a little longer as I will have limited online access during the second week of that period due to matters in real life), then this case will be retroactively rejected. For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:51, 10 June 2015 (UTC) (Chairperson)

I'm available for this one. Andrevan@ 18:43, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Andrevan is assigned as the mediator on this case. — TransporterMan (TALK) 13:03, 15 June 2015 (UTC) (Chairperson, Mediation Committee)

Since Andrevan can no longer continue with this, I would be willing to consider taking it. Sunray (talk) 15:11, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

You're assigned, with thanks. Please inform the parties and update the in-progress template. For the Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:34, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.