Wikipedia:AMA Requests for Assistance/Requests/January 2007/Sethie

Case Filed On: 02:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedian filing request:

Sethie (talk · contribs)

Other Wikipedians this pertains to:

TimidGuy (talk · contribs)

Wikipedia pages this pertains to:

Transcendental Meditation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Questions:

Have you read the AMA FAQ?

Answer: Yes

How would you describe the nature of this dispute? (policy violation, content dispute, personal attack, other)

Answer: content, other

What methods of Dispute Resolution have you tried so far? If you can, please provide wikilinks so that the Advocate looking over this case can see what you have done.

Answer: discussion, third party, disucssion on policy pages

What do you expect to get from Advocacy?

Answer: Advice in navigating this process, helping Timidguy and I choose the right process to resolve the dispute, OUTSIDE OPINIONS!

Summary:

Myself and Timidguy have been, well, vigirously debating for quite some time. We recently reached an impass and I thought we were going to do an RFC, however he has requested an advocate and his advocate appears to be reccomending meditation. [[1]]

I'd prefer a simple RfC and... I am not in control of a lot of things!

Discussion:

RfC

I suggest you stay away from RfC. This will lower the reputation of all involved parties, and possibly will make the debate worse.

It is important to remain civil. The tone you have used here is too hostile. Your point, however, is somewhat valid. Computerjoe 's talk 18:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback, I'm a very aggressive debator, and maybe that needs to be modified?

I'm unclear why you think a RfC (I was thinking a content RfC btw) would lower the reputation of us? Sethie 18:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As it would make everything slightly more high profile. What could be perceived as incivility on your behalf would be more likely to be used against you if you were involved in an RfAR, RfA or user-conduct RfC. Computerjoe 's talk 21:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What's the problem?

Please could you summarise in a few bullet points the key issues. Bare in mind I have no experience in this subject whatsoever. I will then consult with the other party and their advocate to see if a comprimise could be reached. Computerjoe 's talk 21:43, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Timidguy, a WP:SPA [[2]], a faculty member of a college run by the TM Organization [[3]], who authored the origonal version of the TM article [[4]], which clearly reads like an ad [[5]] has challenged nearly every single addition of critical material to the article. I have debated him vigirously and have agreed with his position sometimes and made significant changes in harmony with his wishes. (As I listed here [[6]]
Be warned calling him a SPA is a personal attack. This is not a formal warning. Also, without a RFCU (which I strongly advise against) you can't prove the IP was, or wasn't, him. Computerjoe 's talk 19:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the heads up, I have never heard SPA reffered to as a personal attack. I don't feel the need to do a RFCU- he acknowledges that he wrote the first version and had someone else post it. Sethie 20:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An example of why I sometimes find it hard to continue to assume good faith with TG is the following situation. I proposed adding in the fact that numerous people call the entire movement "Transcendental Meditation." I provide 10+ citations for this [[7]], including a variety of different kinds of sources. Timidguy's response? To claim all my citations were "religious or anit-cult." [[8]] I challenged this claim. He did not respond, as he often doesn't when his position is directly challenged, and just changed his line of attack against my proposed change, or moves on to the next thing he wishes to challenge. His capacity for distortion and exageration is clearly indicated in his AMA request. He says "He (sethie) was recently disciplined by an Admin... for making the article a battleground." Yet, if you read what the admin wrote, it was an expression of the admin's philosophy of "no enemy," not that I had made the article a battleground. Nor was I disciplined!

You could include in the article that people hold a point-of-view. Articles have to be in a NPOV; sources don't. They have to be reliable though. Computerjoe 's talk 19:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My bottom line is that I believe with a few extra experienced eyes, most of my contributions to the article will meet with other experienced editors approval for the policies of wikipedia. All I am after is ways to get more eyes on the article so that some of the deadlocks can be broken.

Timidguys representation of my behavior and the situtation is rather distorted, innacurate and just way out of context. The one exception to this is his claim that that I have crossed the civility line. I most certainly have, though I think his portrayal of HOW much I have is way off. I will not waste people's time by replying to his specific allegations, unless asked to.
You're tone is pretty incivil, I'm afraid. Computerjoe 's talk 19:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you are the 2nd admin to say this to me, so it looks like this is somethng I need to look at.Sethie 21:01, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not an admin. Computerjoe 's talk 13:46, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I personally don't see a big deal here. I see two editors with vastly different perspectives creating a really amazing article. I see a few areas of contention that can be easily cleared up via a RfC or outside comment. I see a few more troublesome areas over which there might be some more intense squabaling. Sethie 01:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How about you turn to WP:3O? While this is a form of mediation I think it'd be more appropiate than a RfC as you're suggesting or a MEDCAB/MEDCOm case as TimidGuy is? Computerjoe 's talk 13:46, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can I suggest we co-ordinate both users centrally on a sub-page of the talk page? Computerjoe 's talk 19:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I WP:30 looks good to me. All I am after is more eyes on the situation. Sethie 17:36, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just trying to convince TimidGuy :) Computerjoe 's talk 20:47, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TimidGuy has reviewed. He is asking for mediation. Computerjoe 's talk 21:55, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for trying. It is of course his perogative to seek that out and it makes sense that he would do so, given his expressed beliefs about me. I personally think it is quite a big leap to go from two user duking it out, right to mediation, without trying some simpler form of conflict resolution. I think an admin or two or a couple of well versed in wiki policy people, with no vested interest in TM, could easily guide us through most of the conflict... and if he wishes to go for a big process, so be it. Sethie 09:08, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I'll now be co-advocating for Sethie (at least until this gets to MedCom, at which point I'll probably have to recuse), I thought I'd introduce myself. In essence, the only way that WP:30 will work is if both (all?) parties will be willing to accept, in good faith, the opinion of the external party - if you'll argue with the provider of the WP:3O, or ignore his/her proposal, then there's no point in even trying that step. As a note, it's more often than not impossible for Mediation to resolve user-conduct disputes, as mediation (official or otherwise) can impose no enforceable sanctions - WP:RFC is needed for that, though hopefully the amicable resolution of the dispute here or at Mediation will nullify the past user conduct problems. Now, the issue is whether to go for 3O or Med(Cab/Com) - both could help, though the issues with the acceptance of the resolution from the 3O can make it useless. It is for the parties to decide - both mediation and 3O need an agreement between the parties on the need for such actions, so we must start from there. At the moment, the two parties are saying different things - Sethie says that there are only two parties, Timidguy that thereare "more than two parties". Timidguy, can you give a list of who you beieve to be involved parties, and we can see if Sethie agrees. It may be prudent ot file a Mediation request and seek a 3O in the time before the case is taken on. Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martinp23 (talk • contribs)

Actually, I definitely do consider myself to be an active party in the dispute, in that I strongly feel that the term "Transcendental Meditation" has dual uses. Sometimes it is used to refer to just the meditation technique. However, it also is commonly used to refer to all of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi's teachings. I strongly feel that this dual usage should be reflected in the article. Tanaats 14:54, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Martin, for inviting me here. On my advocacy page I had noted in response that I was holding off. It had seemed like the batttleground issue was somewhat in the background and that we could proceed reasonably in beginning dispute processes on contested points. I posted an RfC regarding an RS issue. Sethie used his statement to accuse me of conflict of interest. It seems like that would have been more appropriate to an RfC inviting comments on a user. I don't see how we can ever deal with the disputed sources in the article if Sethie intends to change the focus of every RfC into a personal issue. I believe we need to resolve this first before progress can be made. Tanaats focuses on the issues. I feel like mediation, whether Medcom or something informal, should be between Sethie and me. Computerjoe had said that a 3O would focus on the article itself. But I just don't see the pont, since Sethie would likely turn it into a personal issue. We need to deal with that, in my opinion. And regarding parties to the issue, my stance is that on content issues, there are more than two parties. In terms of users issues, my complaint is with Sethie's making it a battleground, and his complaint is with my conflict of interest and not answering his questions.

It seems like we need a neutral space (as had been suggested by Computerjoe, I believe) for the advocees and advocates to congregate. Does someone know how to do this on the TM Talk area? If not, I can figure it out. TimidGuy 16:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you read my statements under the RfC, you will see that I wrote one sentence about a POSSIBLE COI, and numerous sentences about the issues. Please don't exagerate.

I did bring up the COI, and is that ALL I said?

Your post above makes it sound as if my ENTIRE response was trying to make things personal and that this is ALL I do, EVERYTIME.

You state that you fear I will turn things personal and historically has that been the case?

One of my main issues with you, which you have clearly highlighted here, is your exagerations of situations.

Sethie 17:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please be careful. You are sounding very uncivil. I have also removed a part of your userpage which could be considered as a personal attack. Computerjoe 's talk 18:13, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Investigation

The statement by Sethie has been moved to User talk:Wikiwoohoo#Investigation of Computerjoe

Although the AMA is a completely voluntary organisation within Wikipedia, all advocates aim to maintain a high level of professionalism in their work. This breeds the respect that other Wikipedians display when they choose the AMA to help sort any problems they may have which they find difficult to resolve without aid.

The claim by Sethie of dissatisfaction with his request for assistance dated 6 January 2007 is one that I have investigated, taking the comments of both Sethie and his advocate Computerjoe as well as the Wikipedian named in the request, TimidGuy into account. I now feel I am able to publish my findings here to lay this problem to rest.

A key point raised was that Sethie used uncivil comments both within this request page itself and on his own userpage, naming other users where it was not necessary. When Computerjoe, his advocate, raised concerns over this, it seems the problems began.

I have found that Sethie's uncivil comments were unjustified and that it was right of Computerjoe to act as he saw fit, removing the comments on the userpage after warnings had apparently been ignored. It is the role of an advocate to assist their advocee during the process of finding a solution to a problem. Turning a blind eye to uncivil behaviour would not have been satisfactory in my view and I was pleased to see how Computerjoe acted.

My view is that Computerjoe is not at fault, while Sethie is encouraged to tone down some of his comments. The actions of Computerjoe in this situation have actually shown him in a very good light and I am pleased to have him as an advocate in the AMA.

I have found Sethie to have simply used slightly stronger wording than is quite necessary. I hope that you can find a solution to your dispute with TimidGuy.

If there is any part of my report that anyone rejects and would like further comment, please feel free to contact me either here, on my talk page or via email (my email address is displayed on my userpage, alternatively you can use the 'email this user' function on Wikipedia.)

I conclude my report in the hope that this dispute ends here and now. Thank you to all involved for your co-operation. Your help has been very much appreciated

Wikiwoohoo 16:37, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your feedback Wikiwoohoo. I have taken some time to sit long and hard with your comments. Sometimes I loose my cool with TG. What I have realized is that I have strong issues with groups labeled "New Religious Movements" and "Cults." I have been in and escaped from three such groups and this dialogue has shown me I have a tendacny to be intolerant towards such groups, or in this case members of such groups.... and TM is one of the three groups I escaped from.

Until I have cleared my mind of all my old resentments about such groups, my current plan is to go very slow dialogueing with members of groups I have been involved in, and only post/type when I am in a calm clear space.

For the record, Computer Joe did not "removing the comments on the userpage after warnings had apparently been ignored." He gave no warning, took the comments off, and then posted his rebuke here. I believe he could have been a better advocate to me by: first raising his concerns and discussing them with me instead of just removing them and secondly not posted about it here. As an advocate I would have preffered he said, "Hey I have some concerns about" and done so on my userpage or somewhere with a little more privacy. That would have made the experience for me more like someone who was on my team.

I am disapointed that no-one saw fit to raise concerns about TG's statements "I don't see how we can ever deal with the disputed sources in the article if Sethie intends to change the focus of every RfC into a personal issue" and "since Sethie would likely turn it into a personal issue" posted here on my AMA page. And... you can't always get what you want. Sethie 19:04, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I move to close this hearing (as it is now in MedCom). Cocoaguy ここがいい _contribs^talkTodays Pick 17:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sethie -

TimidGuy -

Followup:

When the case is finished, please take a minute to fill out the following survey:

Did you find the Advocacy process useful?

Answer:

Did your Advocate handle your case in an appropriate manner?

Answer:

On a scale of 1 (worst) to 5 (best), how polite was your Advocate?

Answer:

On a scale of 1 to 5, how effective do you feel your Advocate was in solving the problem?

Answer:

On a scale of 1 to 5, how effective do you feel the Advocacy process is altogether?

Answer:

If there were one thing that you would like to see different in the Advocacy process, what would it be?

Answer:

If you were to deal with this dispute again, what would you do differently, if anything?

Answer:

AMA Information

Case Status: open

Advocate Status:

Pending on advocate Computerjoe Mart inp23 18:03, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Accepted. I am willing to co-advocate with User:Gary123. Computerjoe 's talk 18:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent - thanks to all of you! Mart inp23 18:56, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have to hand this case entirely over as I apparently am not acting appropiately. I am also referring this to the co-ordinators office for investigation. Computerjoe 's talk 19:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Following the accusation of improper conduct and incivility, I have begun an investigation into this matter. Wikiwoohoo 19:23, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cocoaguy ここがいい _contribs^talk 16:04, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]