Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Rorschach test

Mediation request will be declined

I think you guys are missing the important part here: If any party fails to sign within seven days, or *if a party indicates they do not agree*, then the request will be declined. That means this *will have to be declined* unless someone can give me a good argument to change my mind before the week deadline runs out. (If it's not declined then you will wish it had been, because the mediator setting himself up as the person to call the shots on decisions about the article will have started the process by violating one of the core rules of the mediation, and you don't want someone who has already demonstrated that they don't care about rules being in charge of sorting out how to follow other rules.) DreamGuy (talk) 17:52, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I am moving the rest of this to this request's talk page. I can see a situation where I might agree that mediation could be helpful, but the proposal above is unacceptable. DreamGuy (talk) 17:54, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Are you saying we can't just continue with mediation without you? Chillum 17:57, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes. If you'd read the rules for mediation you'd know this already. I was trying to explain it to you, and you removed my comments from the page. That was not a good idea at all. DreamGuy (talk) 18:09, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I think he is. I wonder what would have happened if the filer had simply not included DreamGuy in the list of parties, though. --LjL (talk) 18:03, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I am the third most active editor on the page. Any attempt to file a mediation that didn't include me would be made in bad faith and invalid. DreamGuy (talk) 18:10, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

It seems contrary to good sense to not have mediation because one person does not want to. I don't know how mediation works, but if there is a rule that says we cannot continue without DreamGuy I say we ignore it. Chillum 18:05, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

That would be up to the mediator, though, not to us. --LjL (talk) 18:06, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I suppose so. Chillum 18:07, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Mediation is about resolving comflicts, not escalating them. Starting out by suggesting that you don't care one whit about what I think is not helpful, and if you got out of mediation with a result I disagreed with I'd not be a party to it and could change the article all I want regardless of what you agreed to. I'm trying to explain to you the proper way to make mediation actually work properly. You say you don't know how it works, so please let me explain. DreamGuy (talk) 18:22, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Consensus isn't unanimity, and you can't "change all you want" merely because you didn't agree with the overall consensus. Not saying that there necessarily is any consensus right now, but what you stated above is just plain inaccurate: if all the other parties involved achieved a consensus, then if you kept making edits against that consensus you would be just being disruptive. --LjL (talk) 18:24, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh come on, you'd really want a mediator in charge of making decisions who already proved himself willing to violating fundamental rules to jump in? What if the mediator happens to have their own POV and decides to ignore all rules and make the rersults of mediation be that everyone has to follow what he said we should do? I've seen it happen on prior mediation cases. DreamGuy (talk) 18:12, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

May I ask why you object so fiercely to us having mediation on this subject? Clearly repeating that there is a consensus has not convinced the vocal minority, an escalation in dispute resolution is needed. If it is not something you agree with you can simply not participate, why would you want to block our efforts? Chillum 18:14, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I said I'd post to the talk page, if you'd stop complaining for two minutes about your misunderstanding of mediation process I wouldn't have had all the edit conflicts that wiped out the info I've been trying to add to explain it to you. Chill for a minute, geez. DreamGuy (talk) 18:18, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

You do realize that among the mediation rules you cited with such force, there is also that "comments should be directed to the talk page"? --LjL (talk) 18:22, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, but: 1) Info that the mediation is already dead unless things changes is kind of important for people there to see, don't you think? and 2) I already said I'd be moving it to the talk page but Chillum took it pon himself to remove that part so nobody would know about the problem or know that they had to go to the talk page to resolve it. Instead of complaining maybe you should take a step back and work toward getting this done the right way. And, seriously, do you think mediation has a chance in hell of succeeding if you can't be bothered to respect someone who agrees with your views and just wants proper rules to be followed? DreamGuy (talk) 18:27, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't know; even though you seem to share my views about the article issues, you do seem a bit too vehement in expressing your concerns and tackling the situation for my personal taste. --LjL (talk) 18:35, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

And you seem a bit too vehement in not following the basic rules of mediation. If you don't want people expressing views, then mediation has already failed and never will work. Show some good faith here. DreamGuy (talk) 18:38, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are talking about. I didn't propose anything here. I merely personally agreed to the mediation. Calm down, ok? --LjL (talk) 20:19, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I am not the one talking in bold and ALL CAPS on the project page. You chill. Chillum 18:23, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

If you'd read the rules you would have already known that, I put it in bold and caps so people who don't bothered to read the rules would actually still see it. DreamGuy (talk) 18:27, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Why are you trying to block mediation? How is this productive? Chillum 18:30, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Did I not already tell you already that I was working on righting this up here from the very beginning but that you keep causing edit conflicts and wiping them out? DreamGuy (talk) 18:35, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay... I hope it is a good reason because this debate needs to stop going in circles and move forward. Chillum 18:45, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Issues to be resolved

For there to be a mediation, an agreement has to be formed about what to even mediate and that mediation would have a chance of helping. So far things do not look encouraging on that end. But if we have any hope of having a mediation, we have to hammer out some details. This is like a business meeting. Some things are on the agenda, some are not. Only those things that are agreed upon as issues to be resolved can go to mediation. That's how mediation works. I'll break this down into sections below, starting with the original set proposed in the request. DreamGuy (talk) 18:35, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Image display

I think the mediator can review and confirm that consensus exists to display images. –xeno^talk 18:44, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I look forward to mediation reviewing and confirming the consensus to display the images. Chillum 18:49, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

• As far as I am concerned, this one has to be completely off the table. The amount of consensus we have that we can and should use at least one real official inkblot in the article without censorship, etc., is so overwhelming that there's no point in even wasting time on starting all over from scratch. DreamGuy (talk) 18:58, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

  Yes, I more included this as a bit of a "top-level" heading. Not thinking that the outcome here would result in no image display. Striking also the "and confirm" part per your notes about the role of mediators. –xeno^talk 19:04, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

  Per all the above. --LjL (talk) 20:43, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes of course there is consensus DreamGuy, but that does not mean that the consensus cannot be reviewed. If you haven't noticed we are starting over from scratch every morning in this debate, a formal review may help settle this. I accept it is forgone conclusion, but there are those who deny such a consensus and it would be nice for settle their concerns. Chillum 20:39, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Location of image display

• I think a fair compromise, now that we are displaying all 10 images, would be to display something else in the lead. Right now, it's a bit redundant. I still think my suggestion "We need an image of the test being administered" has editorial merit above-and-beyond mere compromise. –xeno^talk 18:44, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
• I would support an alternate lead with anything as appropriate or more appropriate, as determined through consensus. Chillum 18:48, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
• I don't have a problem with discussing this, as long as it's clear that it's location on the article and not location on a subpage or talk page or hidden behind some censor block or something as being located bewtween code making it invisible. Location means spot on page where it's viewable. DreamGuy (talk) 18:58, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
• As long as it's understood that we'd be simply improving the article by using as good or better an image in the lead, I'm fine with this; also considering that the lead image currently includes a map of the three most common location details, it would probably be most appropriate in the corresponding section. --LjL (talk) 20:43, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Number of images displayed

• I think the mediator can review and determine help us come to an agreement on whether there is consensus to display all ten images. –xeno^talk 18:44, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

• I look forward to the mediator reviewing and determining if the consensus or lack there if regarding the display of the complete set of images. Chillum 18:51, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't mind discussing this, but you both should be aware that mediators do not "determine" any such thing. They are there to help us come to conclusions, not to say something is writ in stone. If we have a mediator with an agenda -- which I have seen happen -- he can't just say what he wants to do. DreamGuy (talk) 18:59, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I've never participated in mediation before - thank you for explaining (amended [1]). –xeno^talk 19:04, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

• I intend to expand on points that are specifically about some of the images (e.g. differences in content responses among the European and North American populations; the main source for that is already in the article), and I don't think that can be done effectively without all the images being shown. Besides, a closed class of ten images is more than acceptable for an image gallery, and I'd really be quite opposed to removing them. --LjL (talk) 20:43, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

To clarify, this page is not for discussion of the issues themselves but of whether they should be part of the proposed mediation. DreamGuy (talk) 15:43, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, what I said above means that I'm really not prepared to concede this particular point; if that should mean I'm "voting" for it not to be part of the mediation, then so be it. --LjL (talk) 15:50, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Other concerns related to disclosure of test material

• I believe an area of disclosure that has been previously unexplored as far as consensus goes is how much information to include and how much weight should be given to things such as "common responses". –xeno^talk 18:44, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

• I think discussion in this area has not yet been exhausted, and that mediation on this point is not yet needed. Chillum 18:50, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Hmm... Perhaps you're right. But the image-related issue is presenting a "block" in moving forward. –xeno^talk 18:54, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

• This is way too vague to be an actual issue. We need specifics, otherwise we could get stuck in a filibuster arguing about everything under the sun. If someone has things they want to discuss, add them in subheadings below and we'll see if everyone agrees. DreamGuy (talk) 18:59, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

  I will deprecate this heading in favour of specific issues being raised that can't be worked out in the usual way. –xeno^talk 19:04, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

• Here, too, I'm not prepared to avoid mentioning relevant facts just to make psychologists happy. Of course, if it's a matter of undue weight, or other legitimately encyclopedic concerns, then things may change; but we'd have to known what the concerns are first. --LjL (talk) 20:43, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Lead paragraph

Another issue is the paragraph in the lead that discussed the "potential harm" issue. I felt it was relevant and encyclopedic, as well as socially responsible. I'd like to see at least a short summary of the moved paragraph noted in the lead (as opposed to being simply mentioned at the end of the criticisms). –xeno^talk 18:54, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I have boldly made this its own section, please feel free to revert if you disagree. Chillum 18:56, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

That's fine - thanks. Here is a pointer to the previous discussion on this: Talk:Rorschach test/Archive 8#Lead para about ethics. –xeno^talk 18:56, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I believe this issue could benefit from mediation. I think such information in the lead would be appropriate if the sources directly related to the topic of the Rorschach test and no synthesis or other types of original research are used. Chillum 18:57, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, the problem is that the version xeno agreed to was full of synthesis and original research. We can't compromise NPOV away just to throw a bone to someone who demands a full skeleton. DreamGuy (talk) 19:01, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I didn't agree to it, I actually wrote it! heh. So feel free to edit it, or whatever, but I still think a short mention in the lead of this potential concern wouldn't kill us. –xeno^talk 19:07, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the lead is already a bit on the long side, but I guess I could live with a short enough sentence stating what psychologic associations think about disclosure of test material. I think it's important that it not sound like a disclaimer (although it could even effectively work as one if people read it), but other than that, this isn't an issue I have particularly much at heart. --LjL (talk) 20:43, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Biting new contributors

I like how a guy who made almost no content contributions to the article and who basically just engages in abuse - including falsely accusing 4 editors he disagreed with of being sockpuppets (see details here [2], they were blocked based on the false accusation and then unblocked) gets to try to set the terms of the mediation.Faustian (talk) 04:03, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Faustian, DreamGuy has been contributing on and off to that article since 2005. Those accounts were given a chance due to assume good faith, but chances are that the 3 who all showed up within a couple of days of each other and had a positive checkuser results are actually sock puppets. There was no false accusation against those three users, those accounts were connected by technical evidence as determined by someone uninvolved in this dispute. They are unblocked only due to an extraordinary showing of faith in them. And yes, there is probably a few other undiscovered sock puppets. Chillum 13:07, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I reviewed his contributions since 2005. They add up to deleting stuff that others put in such as here: [3], minor grammar fixes or arranging the order of the information in the article such as here: [4] and of course adding the image. This was in 2005. He made no contributions at all in 2006, 2007 and 2008 and didn't make any until June 2009. I haven't come across any content contributions, other than dealing with the image, at all. So I stand by my comment that it's odd that someone who makes almost no content contributions to the article but who engages in uncivil comments about many of those who do, and who makes false accusations gets to set the tone of the mediation. And your claim that Dreamguy has "has been contributing on and off to that article since 2005" when he just wrote in 2005 and again starting in June 2009 is pretty disingenuous.Faustian (talk) 15:53, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

For an accounts to be sockpuppets, that means there's a single person behind the curtain. These three individuals were distinct. Confirmed via email. –xeno^talk 13:10, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, if they, as my understanding goes, were individuals from the same institution, appearing all at the same time... well, the wording against meatpuppets is pretty strong and relevant to the case. --LjL (talk) 13:14, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

It is also not hard to ask your buddy to use their email address. I also agree the meatpuppetry and socksuppetry are equally against the rules. I won't comment further on the unblock, but said unblock does not mean they are not puppets. Chillum 13:18, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I made some comments about "meatpuppetry" at Talk:Rorschach test#Formal mediation filed. –xeno^talk 13:17, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I had seen them, and I agree with you that under Wikipedia's definition, psychologists joining only to oppose display of the images, especially if they were recruited, would be meatpuppets. On the other hand though, you seemed to imply that Wikipedia's definition in this case should be taken with a grain of salt; well, I don't honetsly see why, since I don't see how a community of psychologists would be different from other "communities of people who agree with you". --LjL (talk) 13:26, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

As I commented below, trying to block someone because their attention was drawn to the article by a colleague in inappropriate and bitey. And reflects poorly on those seeking the blocks. –xeno^talk 13:30, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I confirmed that both users were students of the same psychology graduate programme. They admitted themselves that one had noted the dispute to the other. So yes, "meatpuppetry". So what? Any admin making a judgment call on consensus will weigh single-purpose account positions accordingly. The attempt to enforce consensus through ^seeking blocking ^of new contributors is off-putting to say the least. If consensus exists, there's no need to show new contributors the door. Why not hear them out? They may also end up sticking around to help build the article. –xeno^talk 13:22, 27 July 2009 (UTC) ^{superscript added 14:48, 27 July 2009 (UTC)}

Meatpuppetry invovles a deliberate attempt to play with the system be recruiting other people. Someone saying to others at the office, "check this out" doesn't seem to be meatpuppetry. I doubt that those newbies knew enough about the system to try to game it. At any rate, Dreamguy's damage was done: they left.Faustian (talk) 13:29, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

It's true, but it's also mostly impossible to know what the "recruiting" sounded like, so I believe at the end of the day one has to judge based on people's behaviors, and if a group of new users suddenly start arguing about something specific in an article (and not even about the article in its entirely) together, then it's only natural for alarm bells to ring. Admittedly, though, I wasn't around on this article when this happened, so I don't really know if things actually went this way. --LjL (talk) 13:36, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I am not attempting to criticize Xeno's unblock, I don't agree with it but it is well within the realm of discretion. I am simply saying the his unblocking does not mean the accusations of puppetry were false. Giving a new user a break on our meat puppetry policies, and assuming good faith in what looks like sock puppetry, does not mean the person was not doing said puppetry. Saying that those who pointed out the puppetry were making false accusations is misleading and inaccurate. Chillum 13:45, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I must say the comment "The attempt to enforce consensus through blocking new contributors is off-putting to say the least." seems a bit out of place. The investigation and the block were done by people uninvolved in this dispute. This was not an attempt to enforce consensus through blocking anyone, the people who investigated and enforced the block has no vested interest in the consensus. The block was based on evidence, not politics.

The same block would have been made in any topic if the same IP started making multiple users that all went straight to the same place and did the same thing. To imply it was an attempt to silence opposition is baseless. Chillum 13:47, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Amended [5] and struck. I understand it was kicked upstairs for neutral review. However, it does give the appearance. –xeno^talk 14:48, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, but appearances are just that, appearances. Chillum 15:00, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, let's summarize: first, four people were accused of sockpuppetry: Danglingdiagnosis and three newcomers. One - Danglingdiagnosis - clearly was not, and was never blocked or investigated as such. So we have one clear case of a false accusation. The other three who were accused were subsequently exonerated and unblocked. The accusation of them being sockpuppets was wrong. Maybe it was reasonable to think that way, but it turned out to be wrong and the therefore the accussation was false. This makes four cases of false accusations. Seems pretty straighforward. Now when a little bit later a bunch of people showed up supporting inclusion of the images after the slashdot article, not a single person falsely claiming sockpuppetry or (probably falsely) claiming meatpuppetry against the anti-image newcomers stepped in to say anything about the pro-image newcomers. This double standard strongly implies that those making the false accusations against the anti-image newcomers were motivated not by adheence to sockpuppet or meatpuppet rules but by wanting to silence dissent.Faustian (talk) 14:30, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

They were unblocked, they were not exonerated. I will point out yet again that both the investigation and the block were made by two people wholly uninvolved in this disputes, any suggestion that someone is playing favorites is baseless bunk. Chillum 14:47, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

They were exonerated of sockpuppetry. They are distinct from eachother, and no sockmaster was identified. Meatpuppetry is another story, but that's not a blockable offense. –xeno^talk 14:53, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Nonsense, pure and symbol. YOU just unblocked them, and you did so ovder the objections of admins not involved in the dispute, as well as in the face of the evidence of the people who blocked them, all because they happened to have access to more than one email. That's not exoneration, that's sheer ignorance, and, frankly, you were way out of line to do it. With missteps like that you should immediately back away from taking any admins actions related to this dispute, as you cannot be trusted to go with what neutral admins decided and just up and do whatever the heck you want. 15:41, 27 July 2009 (UTC)~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by DreamGuy (talk • contribs)

I've replied to this false accusation of wheel-warring and impropriety here. –xeno^talk 13:43, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Like I said before, a) it is not hard to ask a friend to use their email address, and b) meatpuppetry is an equal violation of our policies, and indeed a blockable offense(From WP:MEAT: "A new user who engages in the same behavior as another user in the same context, and who appears to be editing Wikipedia solely for that purpose, may be subject to the remedies applied to the user whose behavior they are joining."). I agree that in the spirit of giving these people a break, and assuming good faith(a lot of assuming) that giving them a break is not outside the realm of discretion for an admin, arguably even one involved in the content dispute. However, they have not been exonerated, rather they have been given a tremendous amount of faith(regarding sock puppetry) and forgiveness(regarding meat puppetry). Chillum 14:58, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I confirmed from their distinct institute-issued email addresses that Zeitgest and Psychology12345 were, as they said, both enrolled in the same graduated psychology programme (so it's not say, a psychologist asking their literature-major friend if they can borrow their email address). Furthermore, their writing styles were all quite distinct. So yes, they were exonerated of sockpuppetry and if you still disagree, I will submit a report of the private evidence (without revealing personally identifying details) to the checkuser and ask them to confirm that  CheckUser is not magic pixie dust and even " Confirmed" results can later be shown to be false positive.

As for meatpuppetry... what remedies have we applied to "...the user whose behaviour they are joining" ? No remedies have been applied to Ward, Faustian, or the other actual editors arguing for forms of image suppression. The new users stopped removing the images after I left them a note pointing them to the discussion. Blocking was heavy-handed and unnecessary, gives the appearance of attempting to enforce a preferred version through blocking, and is bitey. It reflects poorly on Wikipedia as a whole and left a very sour taste in my mouth. –xeno^talk 15:06, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I would say that both of our points of view are within the realm of interpretation of policy. We will just have to disagree on this matter. I personally would prefer that enforcement, or lack thereof, be wholly handled by uninvolved admins from now on. Chillum 15:11, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

That's fine. I'm actually thinking about removing myself from this debate altogether. –xeno^talk 15:36, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

And if those accounts edit again I will file to get them blocked again. DreamGuy (talk) 15:41, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

On what grounds? –xeno^talk 15:45, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

This thread has wandered far from its original point, which was about a guy who made almost no content contributions to the article and who basically just engages in abuse - including falsely accusing 4 editors he disagreed with of being sockpuppets. A couple of comments about that:

1. A lot of useful work is done on Wikipedia by editors cleaning up what others have done in various ways, without adding content. Their contributions can sometimes be just as valuable as those of editors who add content; in fact their contributions can be far more valuable than the "contributions" of some editors who add content in unhelpful ways. The fact that an editor's contributions are of one type rather than another does not in itself give that editor any less status, or any less right to take an active part in further related processes.
2. If a particular set of edits looks like sockpuppetry it is quite right to raise the issue. If on investigation it turns out the suspicions were ungrounded that does not make the decision to have those suspicions investigated wrong. "Falsely accusing" someone is only wrong if the accusation is made without reasonable grounds for suspicion, which clearly was not so in this case. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:45, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

He continues to make those accusations and has threatened to have those users blocked if they return. Also his non-content additions were few and mostly in 2005.Faustian (talk) 13:55, 28 July 2009 (UTC)