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

Case Filed On: 17:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedian filing request:

• TimidGuy (talk · contribs)

Other Wikipedians this pertains to:

• Sethie (talk · contribs)
• Tanaats (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 dispute

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 on Transcendental Meditation Talk page and on user Talk pages

What do you expect to get from Advocacy?

• Answer:The perspective of an experienced editor or Admin, especially as it applies to NPOV and RS. And guidance in taking steps toward DR.

Summary:

Editors Sethie and Tanaats have de facto control over the article on Transcendental Meditation. Both are vocal critics. Tanaats has a web site devoted to opposing Transcendental Meditation. Without discussion Sethie inserts material from poor sources -- POV web sites, studies not published in scientific journals and not peer reviewed, random quotes from newspaper articles, quotes from uncorroborated primary source documents. If I challenge and delete, he immediately reverts. And Tanaats supports his every move. I'm not an edit warrior (unlike Sethie) and unlike Sethie and Tanaats, I have a day job, so Sethie wins every time. I then begin a discussion arguing my case -- which can take days. Twice now they've acquiesced regarding problematic sources, but mostly they stand firm. And on those two occasions where I did seem to prevail, it only angered Sethie and led to a new round of insertions of weak material. I don't understand why Sethie's version should be the default and I'm forced to argue for taking it out, especially since he has such a poor track record.

There are so many things that seem like they shouldn't be there. We're currently arguing about a study that wasn't published in an academic journal and that wasn't peer reviewed. Also, we're debating the source of highly controversial statements from an affidavit quoted by The Skeptic's Dictionary. The latter cites a POV web site. The POV web site cites a court case. Yet, when I checked with the court, the affidavit isn't part of the court record. Its only existence is on POV sites. Another issue is undue weight -- the article is now about two-thirds criticism and controversy.

An advocate could help give perspective -- to suggest whether these controversial sources are legitimate or not. And if not, could help me get started with Dispute Resolution -- something that seems to be the next step. And an advocate could possibly help show me how to create a more level playing field so that the additions to the article aren't so carelessly made, without consensus.

Discussion:

Subsection1

I just had to take this. I would go to WP:TINC and file a mediation case as that is generally the first step of DR. (plus it looks good if you have to go to Arbcom) Geo. 22:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Great. Thanks so much, Geo. I really appreciate your interest and your help in this case. There are really two issues, it seems: 1) our not having a common understanding of specific guidelines, and no reference point to come to a common understanding, and 2) the de facto control of the article by the opponents of Transcendental Meditation. Would mediation be the first step in these issues? Would it be expected that we'd do an RfC first on the specific points regarding the guidelines? It's so great having an experienced and neutral person to bounce ideas off of. TimidGuy 12:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Personally I would file a Medcab case first, because an RfC isn't binding per se. Geo. 05:51, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Geo. I spent some time looking at Medcab. I didn't even know about this. It wouldnt't have occurred to me to start with mediation. For some reason, I had thought that an RfC was the first step.

I happened to run across WP:NOT. And it occurred to me that in addition to the cabal issue, there's a battleground issue. I'm starting to wonder whether maybe most of the problem stems from this. Sethie has clearly made the Transcendental Meditation article a battleground.

He has used personal attacks, including "brainwashed Mantra Zealots" and "you are a preditable [sic] robot." And one that I happened to see in the archives: “You poop head.” He was recently disciplined by an Admin for his constant abrasive behavior and for making the article a battleground.[1] The Admin cited statements such as “for fuck's sake.”

Sethie isn’t shy about the fact that he’s making it a battle. Until late November, this sentence was prominently on his user page: "To all those who wish to use Wikipedia as a place to promote TM- watch out, I will eat you for lunch." Regarding the TM organization, he has explicitly stated, “I dislike the TM movemnet imensly [sic].”

On his Talk page he said that I behave like two previous editors who both left Wikipedia just before being banned: “I have been thorugh [sic] this all before. I basically get to serial date you guys. We're just getting warmed up Timidguy. There was so much more well-cited, critical information about TM.”

When he appeared in the TM article in November after not having been there regularly for a number of months, he got angry and said that the article had been “stolen.” He then resolved to find negative material that had been removed so that he could reinsert it. And he followed through, inserting material that had been removed based on earlier discussions, knowing that there were problems with it and that the editors who had objected to it were no longer around.

What do you think?TimidGuy 20:28, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

The more I think about this, the more eager I am for mediation. At first I wondered whether it would be just with Sethie, but I realize now that it should also include Tanaats. He's generally fairly reasonable and pleasant to work with, but he vigorously supports Sethie's every insertion, no matter how weak. And I feel he uses a subtle sort of intimidation when I've successfully made a point. He typically tosses out a red herring and imples a tit for tat. Like yesterday when I noted that a book was quoted from but there was no citation given nor page numbers: "Go ahead and hang a 'fact' tags on the Mason stuff if you like. I'll try to get the cites. I'll look around and hang fact tags on other uncited statements." When I challenged a primary source, instead of responding to my argument, he said there were many similar from Maharishi and listed a number of them. I have no problem with his challenging anything in the article. Rather, it's just that I have much less time than he and Sethie, and already there are a half dozen issues on the table, and dozens more that need to be addressed thanks to Sethie's sweeping changes. I panic at these subtle tit for tats because just when I feel like we're getting one issue pinned down, Tanaats tosses out a red herring and implicitly threatens to broach a bunch of additional issues. But, still, he's very reasonable and immediately acquiesced in this latter example when I suggested we first deal with the issue on the table.

As a result of the threat of additional onslaughts by Sethie when he's angered and Tanaats's subtle intimidation, I'm afraid to make any changes to the article, especially knowing that Sethie will likely revert and have no qualms about edit warring. Yesterday I was able to delete two items that were poorly sourced, and the deletions weren't reverted. I believe this is due to my having openly broached these issues -- which suggests that this process is already having an effect.

The irony is that I feel like I could work with Tanaats and Sethie to improve the article. I feel like I could help them rewrite sections, such as the cult and religion sections, so that the points are made in a more effective fashion. For example, the one real secondary source that they have regarding cults (Persinger) isn't effectively used, and instead there's a lot of junk there. But we end up endlessly bickering about sources, which almost without exception don't meet the guideline for the sort of secondary sources that Wikipedia strongly recommends.

In fact, I've done almost zero editing on the article since mid-Novemeber. Instead, I've spent countless hours debating these problematic sources and trying to undo damage done (errors, half truths, falsehoods, etc.).

Could you briefly describe the mediation process and the sort of outcomes? And why Medcab rather than regular mediation? Thanks so much! TimidGuy 16:02, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I have been thinking over the last couple of days. From what you told me, this may be a Medcom case. Mediation on Wikipedia is the first step in DR. There are two forms, Formal and informal. Informal mediation is conducted by the Mediation Cabal(Medcab). Medcab mediators try to get get both parties to come to a reasonable compromise, generally this works. Most cases are filed in Medcab . Medcab cases are usually small disputes that wrap up quickly. Formal mediation is conducted according to the Mediation policy by the Mediation Committee (Medcom). Medcom cases are big disputes that take longer to resolve. I am not that familiar with Medcom, because Medcab is generally more popular, but you can read the Mediation policy or Medcom page to learn more about it. I think that you may need to file for formal mediation, because of the magnitude of this dispute. Geo. 20:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Subsection 2

Thanks so much, Geo. It's great having your input. I'm getting a clear picture of the different approaches to mediation. I'm glad that you concur that this is a serious issue. Since you're not that familiar with Medcom, should we ask for the advice of an advocate who has more experience with it? TimidGuy 16:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

After reading the Mediation policy, I believe that a Medcom case is preferable in this situation. You don't need to get another advocate. Geo. 17:56, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Geo. I'm ready to go ahead. I've given some thought to the parties in the dispute and now think that it's mainly Sethie and the battleground issue that's causing most of the problems. If you agree, then what's the next step? TimidGuy 12:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply on my Talk page. I'll go ahead. I appreciate your guidance. Is your role done, or are you available for further assistance, if I need it? TimidGuy 18:09, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Can I ask for you to back off from mediation for a few days and see if we can reach an informal solution? Computerjoe's talk 21:21, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Sure, no hurry. This is all new to me. Eager to know what my advocate thinks. Why would we do this informally rather than take advantage of mediation? TimidGuy 21:29, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Mediation, or a RfC, would make everything slightly more high profile. This may damage all parties' reputations. Computerjoe's talk 21:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I feel like I don't have much to risk. On the other hand, my goal isn't to get Sethie in trouble, even though I feel his actions are a serious breach of Wikipedia guidelines and the integrity of Wikipedia. And I assume I can always take it up again later. But I'll want to know what my advocate recommends. In any case, I do appreciate your taking an interest in the situation. I feel like the situation is already improving a bit, having just taken these initial steps. TimidGuy 22:16, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I concur with Computerjoe. A few more days won't hurt. Plus if a solution can be reached, the dispute is ended. If not then you just proceed to Mediation. Geo. 00:33, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

OK. Thanks, Geo. Will hold off in case a solution can be reached informally. TimidGuy 12:44, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm starting to have second thoughts about this. I'm not convinced that an informal solution would have any effect on Sethie's behavior. Also, I don't understand the format. Would Computerjoe simultaneously be acting as Sethie's advocate and as a sort of mediatior? TimidGuy 11:53, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I cannot act as both due to the rules of MEDCAB and AMA. However, I am attempting to reach a comprimise as at this point it would be beneficial to my advocee. Computerjoe's talk 13:44, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

My party wants a RfC. You want a mediation case. How about WP:3O? Computerjoe's talk 13:48, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Computerjoe. I do appreciate your willingness to help. Wikipedia is an amazing place, with so many dedicated volunteers like yourself.

The reason I'm having second thoughts is this: when I first began this process, Sethie seemed to take notice and backed off a bit. I was encouraged. Then when you suggested an informal resolution, it sounded like it might work. But in the past few days he's back to form, being abrasive, inserting flawed material into the article, enforcing his opinion via edit warring, and maintaining his de facto control over the article. I'd need to be convinced that he'd take it seriously. Everything about his past actions suggests he wouldn't. Read his response when an Admin got after him recently for his incivility and for, in the words of the Admin, making the article a "battleground."[2]: "I'm not going to lie to you and say, "Everything is all different," I'm a fighter, I've fought over that freaking page for over a year now! And the editing style you suggest seems totally over my head. "

Regarding getting a third opinion, I feel like we already have many. My advocate feels that his behavior is out of line, you told him twice that he has a problem with civility, the Admin got after him about it, and he himself has admitted on a least a couple occasions that he has a problem with it. Now it seems like it's time to do something about it -- something that he'll pay attention to. Though my guess is that nothing short of arbitration will make him pay attention.

Still, I'm open to being convinced otherwise. And of course I'll want to hear what my advocate has to say. TimidGuy 16:14, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

The third opinion wouldn't be over his civility. It would be regarding the article itself. For civility, if he is incivil we may be warned by admins or other users. I'd suggest you, personally, didn't warn him. Computerjoe's talk 20:46, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Computerjoe. Before I respond I'll want to hear from my advocate. TimidGuy 12:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

No word from my advocate. Since there are more than two parties involved in content disputes in the article, it seems like a third opinion isn't appropriate. I'll look into mediation. It seems like we have to deal with the battleground issue.TimidGuy 12:57, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi - I've left a comment at Wikipedia:AMA_Requests_for_Assistance/Requests/January_2007/Sethie - could you respond there please? Martinp23 11:19, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Geo, for your recent suggestion to ask Computerjoe what sort of process he had in mind. And thanks for your suggestions, Martin. Again, I really appreciate the sincere effort on the part of everyone to help.

The article has been fairly stable the past two weeks, and the battleground issue has receded somewhat. For now I want to hold off on moving forward with mediation. I'm hoping to use this stable period as an opportunity for some RfCs -- something that was difficult earlier because of the problems noted above on this page. The parties to the disputes have agreed, at various times, that specific issues would benefit from input. TimidGuy 12:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Geo. Things are a problem again. Please see my post on Sethie's advocacy page. TimidGuy 17:29, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Geo. It would be great if you could explain to me what it means that Computerjoe has changed the status of the case to "Under Investigation" and what he means that he has referred the case to the co-ordinators office for investigation. Thanks! TimidGuy 16:04, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

My former advocee complained about my conduct. Computerjoe's talk 16:16, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Geo. Thanks for your message on my Talk page a few days ago. So here's an update: we did an RfC on a specific issue, and had somewhat ambiguous results. The two commenters, who are both experienced contributors to the guidelines,seemed to support my interpretation of the guidelines -- that a particular source may not meet the criteria for secondary sources and that it wasn't neutral. But still we couldn't resolve things, and we concluded by agreeing that mediation could help us.[3] We had been talking about the need for dispute resolution, but I think we had a misunderstanding of mediation, at least I did. I was thinking of it as sort of a court. But now we're starting to understand that it's a process whereby editors try to learn to work together and collaborate. Tanaats, Olive, and I agreed that this would be useful.

What do you think? Earlier you had suggested Medcom, and to me that seems to be the vehicle that we need. It seems like it would involve me, Tanaats, Sethie, Olive, and Duedilly. The latlter two have been somewhat more active lately. Chemistryprof hasn't appeared in a while. Sparaig's involvement is intermittent. If we go the Medcom route, should Sparaig also be named? He doesn't seem to get actively involved in the disputes but does offer relevant research and comments. He's been more active the past few days.

Eager to know your thoughts. TimidGuy 12:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your note on my Talk page. I went ahead and filed a mediation request -- and made it fairly broad. I should have discussed that with you a bit. I appreciate your initially pointing me in the direction of Medcome. I think the parties involved are ready to try to figure out a way to collaborate rather than dispute. TimidGuy 18:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Geo, I thought that I left you a message earlier, but I must have forgotten to save it. As you've probably noticed, our mediation request has been accepted. Do you think that I should approach a mediator and invite him to take the case. I see in the instructions that that's allowed. If you think that idea is OK, do you have any input on how to select which one to approach? Thanks. TimidGuy 16:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Ignore the above. We were fortunate to have a very experienced mediator take the case. TimidGuy 15:46, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Followup:

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

Did you find the Advocacy process useful?

• Answer: Yes, it was extremely useful. It brought a number of issues out into the open -- and greatly helped the situation.

Did your Advocate handle your case in an appropriate manner?

• Answer: Yes, he did a good job of steering me toward mediation and giving helpful input.

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

• Answer: 5

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

• Answer: 5

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

• Answer: 5

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

• Answer: Maybe a bit more timely feedback on questions, but I'm not complaining.

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

• Answer: Nothing differently. Though next time I might select a different mediator. The one who took our case seemed reluctant to deal with the issues we brought to the table, but I understand his approach and his perspective on Wikipedia. TimidGuy 17:15, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

AMA Information

Case Status: closed

Advocate Status:

• Geo. 22:50, 5 January 2007 (UTC)