Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Causes of the War of the Pacific (2.)

Additional issue 5

What means "Additional issue 5"?. --Keysanger (talk) 13:15, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Unacceptable behavior

My latest additions have been modified and/or removed by Keysanger. Please see [1]. This is totally unacceptable behavior by a long-time user who should know better, and I will refuse to participate in this RfM if this user allowed to engage in this blatant type of harassment.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 15:31, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Personal Attacks and proxies

Hi @TransporterMan:,

I would like to ask you two questions,

1. Are proxies allowed here?. Can a user represents, for example, Pope Johannes Paul II or President Obama?.
2. Are Personal Attacks allowed here, for example, This is borderline user behavior or (deleted by Keysanger) ?

Thanks in advance, --Keysanger (talk) 12:21, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

All the above

• "Additional issue 5" would appear to me to be just a left-over unused placekeeper.
• Please do not modify or respond to one another's postings, either here or on the case page during the case acceptance period.
• The question about proxies is too abstract for an answer, but there is no reason that one participant in a multi-party dispute cannot adopt issues raised by a different participant if he or she thinks that they need to be resolved. As previously pointed out in the last filing, the mediator will negotiate which issues will actually be mediated and parties may withdraw from some or all issues that they do not care to mediate them.
• One of the primary purposes of mediation is to provide a moderated forum in which extraneous matters such as incivility can be kept to a minimum. If a mediator accepts the case, it will be up to him or her to decide how strictly to control such distractions. Here in the case acceptance period, however, there should be no reason for such control as parties should not be engaging in discussion with one another.
• Unless something changes, this case is obviously going to be accepted. Once that happens, I will put out a call for a mediator on the committee's mailing list and members have 14 days to decide whether or not they wish to accept the case. If no mediator chooses to accept the case, it will be retroactively rejected for lack of a mediator.

For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:41, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Transporterman. I also appreciate learning that the amount of issues to be mediated can be reduced. The current listing is excessive.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 00:56, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Clarification

I added to my agree that the formal mediation can occur only on condition of noPersonal Attacks. --Keysanger (talk) 05:21, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

As explained in the prior application, conditional acceptances are ordinarily counted as rejections. I have explained above the control which can be exercised by the mediator, and it is not acceptable to impose a condition which will strip the mediator of the discretion to handle behavioral matters as s/he may see fit. Unless you revert back to a plain acceptance within 24 hours, this request will be retroactively rejected as withdrawn/insufficient acceptance, with prejudice against refiling a third time. For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:35, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

In your stance I see two issues that I can't understand. Civility and conduct/content issues.

First

As far as I understand, Civility is listed as WP:5P4, one of the 5 pillars of Wikipedia:

Editors should treat each other with respect and civility: Respect your fellow Wikipedians, even when you disagree. Apply Wikipedia etiquette, and don't engage in personal attacks. Seek consensus, avoid edit wars, and never disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Act in good faith, and assume good faith on the part of others. Be open and welcoming to newcomers. Should conflicts arise, discuss them calmly on the appropriate talk pages, follow dispute resolution procedures, and consider that there are 6,828,459 other articles on the English Wikipedia to improve and discuss.

For me that means that civility is basic, it is the base of any discussion in wikipedia. Without civility we will transform Wikipedia in a Carnaval of abuses, infamy, personal attacks, imputations, etc. It is not a "conditional acceptance". It is the norm.

Second

You wrote to me that your issue #9 may be rejected for mediation as a conduct issue [2]. Why did you want to reject my issue #9 but now you don't want to focus on a Personal Attack This is borderline user behavior?.

So, I don't see a "conditional acceptance" in holding the WP:5P4 and I think you have it already asked me to do it (what I did). I am at your disposal for a Formal Mediation that observes the rules of WP.

--Keysanger (talk) 09:00, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

TransporterMan hasn't stated anything wrong, and Keysanger is again missing the point. The phrase that Keysanger claims is a personal attack is, clearly, not a personal attack. I also don't understand the ostentatious, sophomoric tone of Keysanger's writing; but it does not surprise me, since he does it constantly. We can't build an encyclopedia if we can't work with someone due to their lack of competence with the English language. This frustrating situation has been going on for over half a decade...--MarshalN20 ^Talk 17:44, 21 December 2016 (UTC)