Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/List of Heroes graphic novels

message: I've signed and I am open to mediation, but I question whether this case should have even been submitted. Here are my issues with this submittion: 
* No prior attempts at informal mediation were made both either party (myself and LowKarmaError).
* Issue erupted on the same day of the submittion, within minutes of it, actually.
* Discussion on a talk page had not stalled or come to a conclusion, in my humble opinion.
To be perfectly clear, I'm not asking for rejection, but simply question the necessity of such a formal, time consuming process for a simple content dispute involving only two people (at the time I type this). Also, no other users had a chance to weigh in at the article's talk page before this case was filed. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 00:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this really necessary? 

message: Since this whole process has been started, I think it would be best if we just went through with it.  To get things started, I would like both sides to provide their argument.  Discussion can begin from there.  --דניאל - Danielrocks123 contribs 04:06, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Beginning of Mediation 

message: LowKarmaError (LKE) wanted to remove external links directly to downloads,—not pages or advertising—citing only Wikipedia's "not" policy and one of its less clear areas. The user seems to perceive the links as excessive and unnecessary advertizing for NBC. They also claim the content is not free. I disagree with all afor mentioned points. The policy the user attempts to cite is not sufficant. The links, when clicked or otherwise used, only automatically download (or initate a download of) content. The content is, to my knowledge, completely harmless and free of charge from the site. It would probably not be free content in the clearest sense, but definitely inbetween free and "fair use". I can understand the need to follow policy and keep the articles up to Wikipedia's standards, but I felt the need to disagree. With regard to LKE's case, it seemed half hearted and maybe a bit too self-assured. By only citing the same area of a single policy and seemingly refusing to expand upon any of their points, they seemed almost arrogant. One cannot simply cite laws or regulations in a court without clearly proving they were violated. Now, to be clear, I make not claims to be that I am judge/lawyer and/or that talk pages are courts of law. I merely feel that LKE made no attempt to truly explain what was wrong with linking to the content, in regard to Wikipedia policy. It was like...they just spouted rhetoric and expected me to submit without being convinced.
I admitted that the links were not vital. I still believe this. I don't think it proves me wrong or LKE right, but is just a fact. If we at the free encyclopedia kept things done to an absolute, unflinching bear minimum of vital content, we might be less informative, entertaining and popular. Not to say that the site's over popularity is at stake here in this one situation, but you know. Anyway, I also said I would oppose LKE on principle, as they had just brought up "the principles this encyclopedia was founded upon" as in cinflict with the links. I find this highly disputable. "What Wikipedia is not" shouldn't be cited as a catch all blocker of content a user disagrees with.
As I went on, I also stated my concerns that LKE was being overzealous about trying to follow policy. I feared that such content blocking simply for the sake of it might perpetuate a common sentiment among internet users that "Wikipedians are Nazies". LKE took my overall comment as both a refusal to continue discussion—when I was actually the one requesting they more clearly make their case—and a perceived insult in the form of calling them a Nazi. Neither assessment is accurate. I've covertly or passive-aggressively insulted people in my day, but that was certainly not an example. Had I meant to call them a Nazi, I meant as well have been bold enough to say it directly. I can see how even the implication would be offensive, especially when used in a liberal "anal retentive" sense. Nazies were known for harsh believes and war crimes. I digress.
This is when the user began taking action which would involve official processes and other parties. They stated, bluntly, that they'd like to take the issue to RfC. Such action is what I was afraid of. That is to say, I'd afraid the user's overzealoys tendencies would lead them to do something rash, uncalled for and overal inappropriate. They themselves amended their statement, feeling "RfC might be overly confrontational," and opted for this RFM instead. I feel this just as unnecessary. Discussion had not ceased and they user seemed to be acting solely on the offense they took at my perceived insult. Sure enough, one of their major issues, as stated on the RFM page, is "whether [i] should compare users to 'Nazis'...[and/or] apologize for such an ill-considered comment." Several times, in fact, they referenced this point and state/imply that I said do what they advise. I fear the whole reason we're here right now is because LKE feels attacked and wishes an authority of some sort to recommend or force me to say "I'm sorry," despite the fact I didn't do what they claim. I'm not sure if it's a matter of overly emotional sensitivity or just their pride at this point. I won't permanently close my mind to an apology on my part, but it seems silly to go through all this just for that. On top of "Nazi" thing, they also imply that I have been violating Wikipedia's "point" policy by opposing them. I certainly not trying to make a point. I'd just like them to make one that's valid. With that, I close. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 06:53, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Ace ide 

message: Allow me to present a brief history of the conflict.  The article, List of Heroes graphic novels, is apparently a list of, well, graphic novels set in the universe of the popular NBC television show, Heroes.  I do not myself watch this show, and merely stumbled across this article back in November randomly (using Special:Random), as I am wont to do from time to time.  I noticed the links to the individual downloadable PDFs and though to myself, "These should not be here.  Wikipedia is not an Internet directory, or a collection of external links.  They should be removed."  So I removed them.  Very simple process, really.  I then went for some time without again editing Wikipedia or looking at my watchlist.  Since I don't care about Heroes personally (I'm more interested in 19th century American history, as my recent edits will show), I didn't happen to look at the article for some time.  
In January, I happened to look at my watchlist and saw the article there (it having been recently edited by someone, although I recall not whom), so I looked at it, noticing that the links had been restored.  I once again removed them, this time explaining my reasoning on the talk page.  Ace Class Shadow reverted my removal, demanding that I cite a specific policy to support my removal.  To be honest, I did not have a specific policy in mind, just a general sense that such links were inconsistent with Wikipedia's mission.  Since I had removed them before in the spirit of WP:NOT, I replied that I felt that this general policy document, which to me seems to be one of the more important ones in Wikipedia, seemed to cover it appropriately.  I refrained from reverting myself because I strongly disapprove of edit warring, but urged Ace Class Shadow to, instead, revert himself.  Ace Class Shadow responded to inform me that he didn't really disagree with my reasoning, but was refusing to revert "on principle", because in his opinion refusing to include the links might tend to further the notion that "Wikipedians are Nazis".  
My immediate reaction to this was "This guy just called me a Nazi".  I've read it over several times now, and I can't find any reading that doesn't amount to comparing me to a Nazi.  He's saying that people who think like I do about what should be in Wikipedia are "Nazis", and that's pretty much straightaway comparing me to a Nazi.  I was understandably very upset by this.  At this point, I did not feel that Ace Class Shadow had in any way discussed the real issue at hand, but had instead insulted and belittled me.  I feel strongly enough about the linking issue that I didn't feel that walking away was an appropriate response.  I could have simply decided to revert him in light of his refusal to discuss the issue in a fair and reasonable manner, but that would likely have started an edit war, and as I stated above, I disapprove of edit warring.  Certainly I could have gotten irate and yelled at Ace Class Shadow on his talk page, but that would be letting incivility beget further incivility.  I considered reporting his conduct to some noticeboard (perhaps the Personal Attack Intervention Noticeboard or the Administrator's Noticeboard), but rejected that option on the grounds that it would simply increase the conflict and would likely spur further incivility, without resolving the real issue.  I originally contemplated an RfC, but I felt that an "issue" RfC would get too little attention (my reading suggests that the community sense is that issue RfCs are usually ignored) and that a user conduct RfC would, again, increase the conflict, and would do so without resolving the real issue, which is whether the PDF links should be included.  After contemplating it further I realized that mediation might offer a channel that could be used to discuss the underlying content question, with the mediator as a "buffer" to hopefully ensure that any tendency that Ace Class Shadow might have toward further incivility would be dampened, or at the very least witnessed by neutral parties.  There has been no further discussion on the talk page of the actual issue, just a couple of people reacting to the intention to seek mediation (one stating that doing so was premature, the other stating that it was appropriate).  
I seek two, mostly separate, outcomes from this mediation.  First, I would like to reach agreement on whether the PDF links referred to above should be, in fact, included in the article.  It is my position that they should not.  Second, I would like to reach agreement on whether Ace Class Shadow's use of the term "Wikipedia Nazis", and in fact his entire conduct in this affair, is the sort of conduct which should be considered acceptable on Wikipedia.   It is my position that it is not, and furthermore that Ace Class Shadow ought to apologize for his careless comments, instead of seeking to find ways to defend them and/or minimize or dismiss those who are offended by them.
As to the content issue, it is (as I have said) my opinion that the individual downloadable PDFs should
not be linked from the article.  In general, external links are dispreferred in Wikipedia, and especially those to nonfree content (and this content, which is owned by NBC and served from nbc.com, is clearly not free).  Wikipedia is not, as I have previously mentioned, an indiscriminate collection of links to external sources, and it is certainly not a download directory (as Ace Class Shadow suggests in his statement, above).  
In addition, in this case, the links in question are links to so-called "rich media".  The "external links" policy (WP:EL) specifically states that "[i]t is always preferred to link to a page rendered in normal HTML that contains embedded links to the rich media."  In this case, NBC has graciously provided the public with such a page, and that page is already linked at the bottom of the main article.  The PDF links are simply superfluous, and by policy should not be included in the article.  However, I think that it is not necessary to refer to this specific policy in order to resolve this matter, and in fact I was not aware of it myself until a few minutes ago.  It cheers me that this relatively obvious principle has already been written out by those who have come before, and so I am not required to construct a complete defense of its appropriateness here.  In any case, it seems to me that it would be quite obvious to anyone familiar with either the letter or the spirit of Wikipedia's policies and principles that these "downloading links" are inconsistent with those policies and principles, and should not be a part of the article.  The link to NBC's catalog of the episode downloads is quite sufficient to meet our encyclopedic purposes here.
The conduct issue relates to Ace Class Shadow's conduct in reverting my changes and the manner in which he chose to discuss it.  I was very much insulted and offended at Ace Class Shadow's careless phrasing which had the effect of calling me a Nazi.  Such language is far beyond the pale and certainly is not conducive to a collaborative editing environment.  The main reason I sought mediation is that I felt that the issue needed to be discussed further, but I felt that Ace Class Shadow was attempting to "shut me down" in the discussion by equating my position with that of a Nazi.  His other comments to me (even some of the ones made about me in his statement above) are equally dismissive, and I find that it is difficult for me to maintain good faith in his willingness to discuss the matter reasonably.  Furthermore, judging by Ace Class Shadow's talk page, it would appear that I am not the only person who finds fault with how he chooses to word his comments.  I would like an acknowledgment from Ace Class Shadow that his words were offensive and counterproductive to our goal of writing an encyclopedia, and an apology from him for the insult and demeaning treatment.  I do feel attacked, and I think that feeling is wholly justified in the circumstances, whether or not Ace Class Shadow intended it as such.
I realize that the mediation process has no power to force Ace Class Shadow to agree to either of the things I have indicated I want out of this process.  However, I am of the hopes that Ace Class Shadow will, through this process, recognize his error, accept that he acted wrongly, and agree to change his opinion and his ways.  I remain hopeful that this process will be a fruitful one.  LowKarmaError 21:14, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by LowKarmaError