| Revision as of 18:26, 12 July 2007 editTheRingess (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers23,992 editsm reply← Previous edit | Revision as of 00:24, 19 July 2007 edit undoPhilKnight (talk | contribs)Checkusers, Oversighters, Administrators125,401 edits Probably will close soonNext edit → | ||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
| |parties = | |parties = | ||
| |mediators = ] | |mediators = ] | ||
| |comment = |
|comment =Probably will close soon | ||
| }} | }} | ||
| <!-- The comment section above is used by mediators to briefly state the status of the case, which shows up on the case list. --> | <!-- The comment section above is used by mediators to briefly state the status of the case, which shows up on the case list. --> | ||
Revision as of 00:24, 19 July 2007
| Misplaced Pages Mediation Cabal | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Status | open |
| Request date | Unknown |
| Requesting party | Unknown |
| Mediator(s) | Addhoc |
| Comment | Probably will close soon |
]]
Request Information
Who are the involved parties?
Sardaka, TheRingess
What is the involved article(s)?
Depression and natural therapies
Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Shakti mantras
What's going on?
TheRingess is following me around, always turning up magically as soon as I write an article, frequently making unnecessary deletions, in one case before I had even finished writing the article.
What would you like to change about that?
I want someone to tell her to stop following me around, and to stop making unnecessary deletions.
Mediator response
Administrative notes
Discussion
Opening Statement from TheRingess
There has already been much discussion about this case on User Talk:Sardaka. I'm going to try to cover briefly those topics discussed there and add some new info. I am not engaged in stalking (already covered). I am more than a little concerned that there is some ownership going on here. This has already been brought up but not discussed.
Regading the Depression and natural therapies article, I made one edit . This was not a deletion nor was it destructive, this was an edit designed to standardize the references in the article.
Regarding the Shakti mantras article, I brought this to AFD because it seemed like original research to me. I forgot to notify Sardaka about the AFD, but he did discover it in plenty of time to comment. Since Sardaka has brought up concerns regarding the AFD process, his concerns might be better addressed in a deletion review rather than a mediation case.
Regarding the Gurudev Siddha Peeth article; a couple of editors have already reviewed my contributions to that article and concluded that I did not violate policy with my contributions. Since Sardaka described my contributions as "unnecessary deletions", I think we can best address his concerns by examining specific edits to that article that I made. In that way, we can all discuss them and revert any that we all deem as unnecessary. I am concerned about hist statement that I made those edits before he had time to "finish" this article. I believe that disallowing any user from editing an article "before it is finished" violates Misplaced Pages policy.
I'm confident that we can clear up any misunderstandings through this mediation process.
TheRingess (talk) 17:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Statement from Sardaka
There have been a few issues with TheRingess (TR from now on), but the main one is that she has been following me around and breathing down my neck. I first encountered her at the SY article, but then the story shifts to my articles.
1. Depression and natural therapies TR turned up soon after this article was finished. I think she may have deleted external links, but that is not an issue. I was surprised to see her turning up at my article, out of 1.8 million articles.
2. Bhagawan Nityananda No issue with this one because I invited response from the SY crowd.
3. Shakti Mantras As soon as this was finished, TR turned up IMMEDIATELY and listed the article for deletion IMMEDIATELY. It was remarkable to see how fast she turned up, given the 1.8 million etc etc. She did not give me the chance to fix any problems, as recommended on WP:DEL. I know she also did exactly the same thing with the IPEC article, and who knows how many others. She seems to make a habit of it.
I asked her how she came to the article. She said: "I don't know". An obvious lie, I would suggest; she knew how she found the article.
I asked her if she was following me. She said: "No". Her denial is in itself a sign of bad faith. If she were following me with any constructive reasons -- wanting to be helpful etc -- there would be no reason to deny it.
I asked her how she came to "Depression" and "Shakti Mantras". No answer.
Note that all of these messages have now been deleted by TR; another sign of bad faith.
4. Gurudev Siddha Peeth I couldn't finish this in one sitting, so I left a notice saying it was still being written. The next day, TR has already turned up and started editing the article before I had even finished it. I don't know if there are any guidelines on this, but you'd think it would be just a matter of common courtesy AND good faith to let an editor finish an article before you intervene.
By this time it was clear that she was following me (unless you believe she came to my articles by sheer coincidence out of 1.8 million etc etc). She was in my hair all the time. I couldn't get away from her. It got to the point where, if I wanted to write a new article, I had to ask myself how TR would react to it. No editor should have to do that. It was also at the point where the only way to shake her off would be to open a new account with a new name. Again, no editor should have to do that. (Please note: in order to turn up PRECISELY on time, every time I finish an article, she would have to be following my Contributions page virtually every day. Why would she do that? I can't think of a good faith reason for doing it.)
Then I got a message from Ganesham, who agreed with me and said he had the same problems with TR himself. He had to change his name in an attempt to shake her off. He also said that she had a history of destructive actions.
Please see Ganesham's messages on his talk page and mine. Then you will know that it's not just me being over-senstive.
Another issue is that she seems to be too fond of deleting other people's contributions, although this is harder to prove because I can't remember all the instances. I first encountered her when she deleted an entry I made on the SY article. I said to her at the time that if we all went round deleting things the way she does, the articles would be in shreds. I have had occasion to say this to her about three times, so it was not a one-off event.
She makes deletions when it is not necessary; when it is largely a matter of taste or opinon. The only examples I can remember are when she deleted two things from the article Gurudev Siddha Peeth. The passages deleted were the statement that Muktananda "died in 1982", and the "See Also" item. Both were useful to the article and there was no conceivable reason to delete them. They may seem like trivial examples, but the trouble is that she is not respecting the right of other editors to make a contribution. It is also a disincentive to other editors. Why bother making a contribution when TR will ptobably turn up the next day and chop half of it out?
Personally, I rarely delete anything, because I respect the right of other editors to make a contribution. Deletions should only be made when there is something definitely wrong, not just over something that is a matter of taste.
Lastly, I don't think the listing of Shakti Mantras was done in good faith. The guidelines on make it quite clear that "if the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion." It is a matter of common courtesy and good faith as well as policy. And as I said before, it was not the only time she has done it.
Sorry to take up so much of your time with this lengthy statement,
Sardaka 09:05, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Please read WP:OWN. I believe that you are engaging in article ownership. If you disagree with that assessment, let's discuss it. For example, why did you refer to the DANT article as my article? On the BN article, why was the invitation necessary? If you hadn't invited response, how would you feel differently? Regarding the SM article, you can bring it up at WP:DRV, neutral editors will review the deletion process and if the process was not followed, then the article can be restored. There's no need to speculate on what I may or may not have done to the DANT article, a simple comparison of versions (under the history) tab, would reveal my exact edits to that article. Regarding that specific edit to DANT, what did you feel was destructive about it? Also with the BN article, I made 3 - 6 minor edits to that article, which specific ones did you feel were destructive rather than constructive? Have you ever felt that I have been less than civil to you? If so, can you please provide a diff to those edits, so I can understand your perspective?
TheRingess (talk) 23:11, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Again
Just for the record, I would like to note that TR turned up at my new article, Oakland Ashram, dead on time, the minute I finished writing it. Maybe it means something, maybe it doesn't, but I just wanted to make a note of it.
Sardaka 13:01, 12 July 2007 (UTC) I'm still having trouble understanding your perspective on this and other SY related articles.
- What about my edit did you feel was not constructive?
- How would you have felt about my edit had someone else started the article?
- Is it your contention that I should not edit SY related articles, or that I should wait to edit those articles?