Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Animal testing

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: My what history? SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 01:52, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Focus of this mediation

message: #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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: [[User:TimVickers]]: concerns about the article

message: 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)
thread_title: Offer to mediate

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Participation of non-parties

message: 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)
replies: text: I've requested WjBscribe to formally close this mediation. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:45, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Close mediation?