Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-06-25 Gender of God

I, Alastair, am submitting this request, because, in my perception, other users are making edits without taking content discussion seriously. This means I cannot add verifiable (or even sourced) content, nor remove unsourced errors. Any attempt to do so is met with personal attacks on my motives and/or credibility as a Wiki editor.

{{User|Alastair Haines}} {{User|Ilkali}} {{User|Alynna Kasmira}}

There are essentially only three content issues. Chronologically:

1. User:Ilkali presumably found a clash between the article title (supplied by Alynna) including "God", yet the content of the article addressing all religions, many of which have "gods" rather than a single creator "God". Dispute resulted over how to address this. Alastair thinks Alynna's title and Ilkali's objection are reconcilable, but his text for this is disputed.
2. User:Alastair Haines provided draft text in a section Comparative religions, which covers some of the theoretical background relevant to Ilkali's concerns. For example, animist spirits, polytheistic ordinary gods, and "high" gods, have been discussed in many sources as appearing to be a progression in human thought towards the idea of a monotheistic creator. This section (imo) links the title of the article with the main content, addressing (imo) Ilkali's basic concern (which, in fact, I share). Dispute resulted regarding this text, but was expressed in terms of personal attacks. "Plagiarism", was one term; and, surprisingly given the first, "unsourced" was another. The text was never discussed in detail, but removed as a block with no attempt to confirm or disconfirm it by its critics. I would like apologies regarding unfounded personal attacks, and a co-operative approach from other editors, who were unwilling to even provide sources available from other Wiki articles.
3. A short, sourced Gender subsection, relevant to the first word of the article title (Gender of God) addressing misunderstandings regarding gender v. gender identity and gender role etc. was removed without discussion. In fact, this section is possibly not even mentioned on the talk page, just dismissed in an edit summary, as if there were no editor available to discuss any objections with. This (imo) is abrupt and inappropriate treatment of other editors, not in the spirit of Wiki and certainly not conducive to improving content, since it removes sources.

Article progress is being impeded by forceful editing, without attempt to justify on the basis of content and sources, and without regard to content-based objections. Edits are instead justified by appeal to a "majority", and objections dismissed by ad hominem claims.

The answer seems simple. Basic Wiki policies appear to be misunderstood. The edit button does not imply a right of editors to insist on their preference (whether alone, supported or even a majority). When there is disagreement, either multiple sourced POVs are included, editors work to a common mind, or text should not be added, since it is unverifiable. In any case, disparaging comments about other editors should be withdrawn if said in haste, and edits cannot be presumed to be legitimated by even a majority of editors; sources and consensus are the Wiki way, not voting or forcing outcomes by collective edit count.

Perhaps it would help for someone other than myself to explain these things. It may also help for someone other than myself to explain that withdrawing personal attacks clears the air. Finally, a short period of a neutral party watching the talk page could be helpful. To see that editors are offering verifiable text, for consideration by all parties, and the views of objectors are being taken seriously before making edits.

• Hi! I'm a relatively inexperienced mediator, but I'd like to become involved with this case. I'd like a formal approval from all parties concerned to ensure that everyone is comfortable with that. Please state your approval (or disapproval) below:

-Rushyo (talk) 22:47, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

• I would be happy for Rushyo to mediate this dispute. Ilkali (talk) 07:45, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
• Fine with me too. --Alynna (talk) 12:08, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
• And with me. Welcome, thank you. Lead on. Alastair Haines (talk) 12:31, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
• Rushyo, if you don't mind, I'd like to help you out and co-mediate. L'Aqùatique[review] 03:20, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

• I have resigned as a mediator from this discussion on the grounds that I have become the target of criticism from a party and as such my continued presence will no longer assist in achieving consensus. -Rushyo (talk) 14:58, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Is this where other parties mentioned in the mediation request can post their view of things? I'd like to point out that the recent problem regarding this article involves Alastair repeatedly reverting the page to a very old version, and three other editors reverting the page back to the most recent version. There is disagreement over which version is appropriate to start from, and which version is "consensus" or "agreed upon". --Alynna (talk) 20:41, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

:Alynna, please feel free to complain about me as much as you like. I think the place for it is the mediation talk page. I think this location is for the Mediation Cabal to discuss the request with one-another or with the proposer. I really don't know for sure, 'cause it's the first time I've needed to use this procedure.

:Since you want the most recent version, I'm restoring that, because, like you, I'd prefer it also. Alastair Haines (talk) 21:17, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

::You didn't restore the most recent version, you just restored the most recent version that you like. It is clearly not the one Alynna was talking about, since the three editors who disagree with you have not been reverting to that version. Ilkali (talk) 21:28, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

:::Thanks, my point exactly. There is a revision representing one point of view, a second representing another, and there is a revision that precedes either point of view. I shall now return to restoring the neutral one, that none of us like, but allows us to work forwards by discussion, rather than "voting with edit counts". Alastair Haines (talk) 06:48, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

::::This is not a tenable protocol, Alastair. Again: If Wikipedia articles were frozen every time a single editor disagreed with a change, and remained frozen until that single editor were satisfied, the encyclopedia would collapse. This whole "work forwards by discussion" thing is a pretense. You have no intention of compromising or establishing consensus for any claim other than 'Alastair was right all along'. If people don't start agreeing with you, you'll just keep reverting to the same version of the article. Am I wrong? Then answer the question that you've already ignored three times: Under what circumstances would you allow the article to remain in the state that is currently preferred by three out of four editors? If the answer is that you would edit war until an administrator warned or blocked you for it, then I question whether you are taking this mediation process as anything other than a means to smite your enemies. Ilkali (talk) 07:40, 26 June 2008 (UTC)