Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Animal testing

Article RfCs?

I must have missed these, when were they? I filed one a few days ago, but removed it when the issue was resolved a few minutes later. Tim Vickers (talk) 04:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think there were others. The talk page discussion is the main thing. This isn't an article RfC issue, because it's about personalities and personal approaches. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} —Preceding comment was added at 04:07, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to look those RfCs over before responding, if I may, they might give me a better idea of what has been tried before. No point in going over old territory. I can't find any RfC archive though, can you find them? Tim Vickers (talk) 04:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, you'll have to look yourself. Tim, if you don't agree to this, I see no way of making progress without these endless fights, which occur frequently and are an incredible waste of time and energy. We need to get it sorted. Even this page is indicative. You could say yes or no, but instead you start a discussion about RfCs, which aren't really relevant. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'll have a look then. However, I thought that if there have been any prior attempts at resolving a dispute are very relevant to the decision on if mediation is the right option. Tim Vickers (talk) 04:21, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The prior attempts are on the talk page, as you know, and yet we have made no progress, so I think it's time to involve an outside party. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's this comment from 2005, but I can't see anything relevant in article links. Perhaps an article RfC might be more useful, since there don't seem to have been any informal attempts at solving any problems we might have, this application for formal mediation is unlikely to be accepted. Tim Vickers (talk) 04:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't about any specific issue that an article RfC would resolve. This is, as I see it, about your editing of the page and your talk-page input. Perhaps you see me as the problem instead. Regardless, it's to do with personal approaches to editing, and the resultant toxic talk page. I think we need help in resolving it. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. I think mediation is needed because the issue is not the article contents but more the personal behavior of some editors. As example, for one editor to call another "useful to have around" indicates a profound lack of respect, which makes moving forward with the content issues very difficult. Crum375 (talk) 04:34, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think an article RfC could help us focus on three key issues

Is the article primarily about the controversy that surrounds animal testing, or the subject in general?
Is too much attention given to the opinions of fringe groups - are mainstream organisations under-represented?
What sources are preferred for factual descriptions of the procedures involved?

However, if you think this is more about personality than our divergent opinions on this issue, I'd be willing to give mediation a try. However, it is unlikely to be accepted as a first step in dispute resolution. Tim Vickers (talk) 04:43, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think this is definitely about personal approaches to editing. For example, your use of primary sources has been discussed many times since you started editing the page in August 2007, but it doesn't stop. And this isn't the first step in dispute resolution; we have tried many times to sort these issues out between us. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that your concerns on which sources are preferable have been resolved, as we amicably agreed in Talk:Animal_testing#Basic_problem. My preferred sources for this article have always been, and continue to be, academic review articles that have been peer-reviewed and published in reputable journals. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:29, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mediator comment

I think it would be useful if we could all agree on what previous discussions are relevant so we have all read the same background information. The discussions on the talkpage are fairly lengthy but I'm making my way through them. Is there any material not contained on the article's talkpage that should be reviewed? WjBscribe 22:50, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is also a current discussion about sources at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Lantern books references. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:02, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there is other material that should be reviewed. This dispute is partly to do with the article, and partly to do with a personal dispute between Tim and me. I mean personal as in between the two of us, not as in actually personal. There is no problem between Crum, Rockpocket, and myself; the three of us have different views about animal testing, but we work well together.

My dispute with Tim began in or around June 2007 when Tim, Jossi, and Marskell wanted to remove from the sourcing policies (V and RS) that non-scholarly sources, particularly mainstream newspapers, were reliable sources. Tim and Marskell wanted to do that because they wanted to stress the pro-science, scholarly views in articles. I respect this, but I nevertheless fought them very hard on it, because a great deal of criticism of certain issues is often found first, or exclusively, in the mainstream press, so to remove mainstream newspapers as reliable sources would have been disastrous for NPOV.

Because I fought him on that, Tim became very annoyed with me, and I think resentful, and posted a large number of complaints about me in various places, accusing me of WP:OWN, and encouraging other people to oppose me. I considered leaving Wikipedia because of the unpleasantness, and in fact stayed only because of my addiction, rather than out of any strong desire. In fact, to be honest, I haven't really enjoyed editing since that time.

Tim subsequently wikistalked me to a few articles, including Animal testing. He stopped when asked to by an adminstrator, but since then he has continued on as an editor at Animal testing. The old animosity between us remains, and it is poisoning every interaction between us.

I would like some time to put together those diffs so that the background is understood. I am not doing this to dwell on it, but I think it's important to see how deep it ran. My recollection is that Tim posted hundreds of posts about it in just a few days, and it was very upsetting for me to be on the receiving end of them.

Because there is at least one person watching this page who has been trolling me for about 18 months, I would appreciate it if we could find a private way to talk further about the background. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:27, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish WJBscribe, we can go back and discuss the actual events to which SlimVirgin refers in her false allegations, but it might be more productive to deal with the issues about the article that SV raised in her submission of this request for mediation. However, it would be good to make clear that I have been editing this article since August 2006 diff. If you want to deal with any personal issues SlimVirgin, I suggest you open an editor RfC on me and the community can discuss both our actions. Tim Vickers (talk) 00:39, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You became a regular editor of this article only after our dispute, Tim, and it's directly relevant to understanding what happened, and is still happening. Without a collaborative relationshhip, we'll be facing dispute after dispute, as has happened so far. That's why I would like to clear it up. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:51, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We would have a much better relationship if you stopped making personal attacks and concentrated on the article, rather than constantly attempting to personalise disagreements. Tim Vickers (talk) 02:16, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I'm mentioned above, I'd like to clarify one thing. "Tim, Jossi, and Marskell wanted to remove from the sourcing policies (V and RS) that non-scholarly sources, particularly mainstream newspapers, were reliable sources." This is untrue, at least of me. I've never advocated removing non-scholarly sources from content policies. My position was (and remains) that claims of a scientific character require sources of a scientific character—the "hard science," so to speak, should not be sourced to newspapers. (As the arb com has suggested.) Newspapers are perfectly reliable for a variety of other material. I won't comment further unless the editing of last summer is rehashed at length. (There's no reason it needs to proceed privately, incidentally, unless Slim can better identify what her fear of describing it publically is.) Marskell (talk) 18:19, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You may be unaware of this Marskell, but the dispute over WP:V arose last summer as a result of SlimVirgin removing the statement that "For academic subjects, the sources should preferably be peer-reviewed." (diff) from the consensus version of the WP:V policy. Since this was done with no prior consultation and buried in the midst of some copy-editing, with the edit summary of "tightened" I had always assumed this was simply a mistake. However, if this change does indeed have a "direct bearing on the misunderstanding about sources and how to use them in the article." as SlimVirgin states below, possibly in particular to our discussion on if the Animal Liberation Front is a reliable source on this subject (link), I am not sure if I can still see this simply as an unfortunate typo. I still want to assume good faith here, and think the two issues are unlikely to be linked, but if they are this would need wider community discussion than can be provided in a mediation. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:34, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Focus of this mediation

I'd like to pin down what exactly it is that this mediation is asked to consider - I'm reasonably flexible based on what you all think needs to be discussed. Are we going stick to looking at the content questions that have come up on the Animal testing article and try and work through those. Or should we be trying to tackle wider issues about the use of sources in this area by the participants? At the moment it looks to me as if Tim and SlimVirgin are looking different things in this process. It seems worth starting out by making sure we're all on the same page...

As a related matter, I want to make sure we're in the right place. Mediation aims to resolve internal issues between the parties - to try and discuss matters and reach a compromise. If that's what will help here, we can give it a go. If what's needed are more eyes on the problem, and input from outside parties, then obviously some form of RfC (whethere an article or user one) is probably more likely to be an effective way to go. WjBscribe 01:05, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was my impression that this mediation was primarily about the use of sources in the Animal testing article - which sources are preferred and how they are used. If SlimVirgin instead wants to use this as an opportunity to launch what I regard as personal attacks, I would open an editor RfC on either SlimVirgin or myself and ask for community feedback. Tim Vickers (talk) 01:23, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The reason we're having such difficulty with the sourcing issues is that we have a very poor relationship. The aim of explaining the background to that -- and, indeed, how and why we ended up in this situation -- is simply to clear the air so we can move on. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:25, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to move on and focus on the article. If you too wish to do so, then let's do that. Please list your concerns and we can discuss them. Tim Vickers (talk) 01:32, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that Tim wants to focus on the precise content questions in isolation, whereas SlimVirgin would like a broader discussion with a view to improving your ability to edit collaboratively. That is a less standard use of this process, but I can certainly adapt if it becomes what you both want from it. If you can't agree (one way or the other) on what it is you want this mediation to be about, I worry that we aren't going to get very far. Either form is fine by me but it won't work if you're participating at cross purposes. WjBscribe 01:42, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it appears more at cross purposes than it is. There are aspects to the background that Tim is not aware of, and I think if he becomes aware of them, it will help him to understand what happened, and will also explain my position regarding sources, which will directly help with the content issue. But I would prefer a private space to discuss that. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:45, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to discuss anything privately (such as your Brandt history) you are welcome to e-mail me. However, if we are going to discuss a Wikipedia article we need to do this here and in public. I am not a fan of back-room deals. Tim Vickers (talk) 01:51, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My what history? SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:52, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the dispute here has more to do with editing relationships and personal conflicts than content issues. It seems to me that we have a few editors who have differing views, but in principle can all find a common ground and NPOV. I don't think that having an article RfC would help in this case, because the content issues we disagree on can and should be resolved among ourselves, once the personal issues and editing relationships are sorted out. A personal RfC would not be effective because personal conflicts between specific individuals are better handled off-wiki, while doing that publicly will be counterproductive. So it seems to me that an off-wiki mediation, focusing on establishing appropriate editing relationships and personal conduct would be most reasonable in this case. Crum375 (talk) 02:00, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also think we are quite capable of working through our different POV issues. However, off-Wiki discussion of an article is unacceptable. Please e-mail me with any private matters and we can move on here to deal with SlimVirgin's sourcing concerns. Tim Vickers (talk) 02:05, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the goal is to mediate the article, as much as the personal relationships and conduct of those editing it. Crum375 (talk) 02:44, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in general the scope of the Mediation Committee is matters of content - see Step 1 in the Guide to filing a case. Commonly matters of conduct are rejected. However, given the two are interwoven here and that I am more open to hearing conduct issues than some of my colleagues, I'm certainly willing to broaden out in this case. That has to have everyone's agreement though. WjBscribe 02:51, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to give the impression that I want to dwell on how the dispute started. I simply want to be able to discuss it briefly, in private, because it has a direct bearing on the misunderstanding about sources and how to use them in the article. One misunderstanding has led to several others. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:57, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your completely and gratuitously inaccurate "summary" above makes me doubt if that would be at all productive. If you wish to discuss my conduct, open an editor RfC, if you wish to discuss the content of the article, please explain what your problems are. Tim Vickers (talk) 03:07, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:TimVickers: concerns about the article

NPOV concern. This has been a major focus of my editing, as too much focus was given to the controversy, and too little on the applications, results and methods. This has, however, improved markedly over the last few months, and I am confident that we can resolve the few remaining areas on the talk page.
Sourcing concern. Use of sources with a clear bias, that have no named authors and no editorial process to check accuracy. These unreliable sources can be used to illustrate the points of view of the groups involved, but are much less reliable for describing the details of research and the outcomes of research than peer-reviewed review articles that have named, expert authors and have been published in respected academic journals. See Talk:Animal_testing#Draize_test for a problem caused by these unreliable sources.
Sourcing concern. Use of extremist sources such as the ALF. These questionable sources are not acceptable in articles that are not about these organisations, as explained in the verifiability policy. However, thanks to discussion at the RS noticeboard, this issue has now been resolved, as the uninvolved editors who commented said unanimously that these sources should be removed. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update - Crum375 has reverted the removal of these sources diff. This is an unacceptable pushing of a fringe POV using unreliable sources that flies in the face of consensus. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:58, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Offer to mediate

I'm willing to try and help you work through the issues with this article myself if everyone is willing. Speak up if you'd rather I didn't - no hard feelings on my part but you will probably be waiting longer for someone else to step forwards. Also, I'm assuming its fine for discussions to happen on this page. There are other options - there's a private Mediation Wiki or we could talk by email - so shout if you think one of those would be better. WjBscribe 22:47, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with you running this and am happy to try to sort thorough any issues people may have on this page. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:01, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Participation of non-parties

I notice that several users who aren't parties to this mediation have expressed views on this page already. I'd like to run this as a fairly "closed shop" focusing on the issues between the main parties - seems that this is case where if any of that can be resolved progress can be made. I also suspect that some of the people contributing views have histories with the users involved, not necessarily the article itself. That said, we could expand the number of participants. If you aren't one of the 4 current parties but wish to be involved in the process, please speak up now and we can discuss bringing you in. I think having people dropping by with comment as and when is likely to be unhelpful to the process. Thanks for understanding. WjBscribe 22:53, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've been watching the page under discussion for two or three months but didn't step in until it seemed that one side was getting a little too, shall we say, personal about the content dispute. I don't, however, have any problem with trying to stay out of the dispute resolution process at this stage. That said, I'd like to say that from what I've seen, an RfC would be a more appropriate forum at this point than mediation. Cla68 (talk) 23:01, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Draw your own conclusions. WAS 4.250 (talk) 01:04, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've been watching this RfM and the article since the acceptance noticed appeared on Tim's talk page. I would like to register a desire to be allowed to participate, if helpful, before you close the door. I haven't been involved in the animal testing page and have no significant history with either Tim or SlimVirgin. We've bumped into each other at times, of course. Both editors are highly respected and have contributed useful material to policy, guidelines, content (featured) and, importantly, to the animal testing article. I'd like to see these editors get along, and hope to be of assistance with the request for help regarding appropriate use of sources. While I understand WJBscribe's intent to avoid this become a place for folk to come with unhelpful agenda, I feel that restricting the discussion to four editors, who are probably at this stage sick of each other, might not introduce many helpful observations. As an example, Tim's recent request at the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard was a useful way of getting past a stalemate and generated comments from the wider community.

However, I am uncomfortable with the request to open this into a wider discussion of editor's behaviour (towards another editor, rather than on this article) and motives (which ultimately remain a matter for speculation). This was not listed as an "Issues to be mediated" since conduct issues are expressly disallowed: "The Mediation Committee only deals with content disputes". Further, the request to take the discussion off-wiki is highly inappropriate for a content dispute. I think WJBscribe's good-faith offer to widen the scope to include conduct was well intentioned but inappropriate and appears to be unwelcome by one of the parties. Successful editing involves depersonalising the disagreements, and avoiding personal attacks. If the parties here are unwilling to take that step, then I believe that an editor RfC is more appropriate. Colin°^Talk 17:14, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments Colin. I would be perfectly willing for my editing to be examined by the community in an editor RfC, and discuss sourcing issues specific to the Animal testing article in this mediation. That would seem a reasonable way of separating the issues and producing a mediation with sufficient focus to be successful. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:31, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would just like to note that this is a very interesting dispute in terms of sources, their uses, and source typing, and that experienced editors in excellent standing are involved. I hope that debates and resolutions will be well documented here. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Mediation policy's "When should a mediation be held confidentially?" section, using off-wiki confidential channel is recommended when there are specific issues between users. This is the case here, as there are specific personal issues that need to be ironed out first. Once the personal issues are out of the way, any content related issues that still need to be mediated would be fully public. I think we are all in agreement that no content issues should ever be mediated confidentially. Crum375 (talk) 05:04, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That section doesn't say that "using off-wiki confidential channel is recommended when there are specific issues between users". What it says is that "provision can be made for a mediation to be held in private - by email, IRC, or (for Mediation Committee cases) on the special purpose Mediation Wiki. Why might parties request private mediation?" In this case, one editor has requested private mediation, and the other has said that he doesn't see any reason for it. So, in this case, private mediation is not automatically called for by the policy as you seem to imply above. Cla68 (talk) 07:17, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm open to arguments as to why we should do that, but to date I have heard nothing. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have been extensively involved in editing the animal testing page over the last few years and have substantial history with all of the involved parties with respect to editing this page and other pages closely related to the animal testing page. I would like to be involved if deemed appropriate. I do a fair amount of editing on Wikipedia, but nothing comparable to the involved parties. --Animalresearcher (talk) 23:40, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Close mediation?

Since I haven't heard anything about this for over a month, and nobody has replied to my comments above, I propose we close this and discuss any remaining concerns on the article talk page. Tim Vickers (talk) 00:04, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've requested WjBscribe to formally close this mediation. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:45, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As mediation requires the agreement of all parties, I am closing this case following Tim's request. WjBscribe 16:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]