Wikipedia:Community enforceable mediation/Commodore Sloat and Armon/Outside comments

Welcome to community enforceable mediation. This is the comment page. If you are not a named party to this mediation, please post comments, evidence, and suggestions here. The mediator Durova may move or refactor statements as necessary.

Suggestion 1 from TheronJ

• I don't immediately see any comunity enforceable solutions to this problem. That doesn't mean we can't help you, but unless there is an edit warring problem or something, I don't see how agreeing to 1RR or agreeing to a one month mutual break on editing Cole's page would help much with this specific problem.
• Is it possible that CSloat and Armon could agree to take the sentence back to its bare facts? Something like:

"Prior to _date_, Cole was best known for his academic scholarship regarding _subject_, and for his role in the Middle Eastern Studies Association. After _date_, Cole has became increasingly well known for his weblog, Informed Comment, and for his appearances as a commentator on Middle Eastern issues."

• That compromise leaves the issue of what role Cole's blogging activities played in his media appearances up to the reader, and produces a nicely encyclopedic discussion of Cole's work and public appearances.

Thanks, TheronJ 19:15, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Participants to CEM don't actually have to agree to remedies. If they work out a handshake deal, so much the better. Durova^Charge! 03:06, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment by uninvolved editor

I read the article as it currently exists:

Public interest in Cole's blog led to attention from other media sources. From 2002 onwards, Cole has been an active commentator in the UK and US media on topics related to the Middle East.

I also read a previous version:

Cole was cited in the mainstream media as a Middle East expert numerous times before 2002. Since 2002, when he began publishing his weblog, his status as a public intellectual was enhanced.

I suggest that the word "numerous" is something of a weasel word (it is too indefinite and vague), and when you see a weasel word, it almost always comes out of a problem with NPOV according to the policy.

If I understand the issue correctly (and I may not), it appears that the timing of his status is in question. Any cite that gives a clear date and a clear statement that his popularity started at that time, would significantly support that view. I believe Armon came pretty close to that. On the other hand, csloat does not want his former status to be ignored -- and indeed csloat presents cites showing that he had a presence of some sort before the time of his blog. But csloat's cites do not give an indication of just how popular he was. Only that he was, from time to time, quoted. Armon's does allude to the timing much more directly.

But the paragraph as it currently stands, entirely ignores the prior interest in Cole. Even if he was not as popular, he was a source and this is not represented at all.

I have a suggested alternative to either of the solutions shown above:

Cole has been quoted or used as a source by periodicals since at least 1990 . However, with the publication of his weblog in 2002, demand for his views (or notice of them) by other media increased.

I think that gets rid of weasel words and it was created NPOV because I have no pov on this issue because I know nothing about it and do not care. It also preserves references offered by both individuals. If this version does not work, what are the problems with it?--Blue Tie 18:38, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I would tighten up the wording a bit but I do not object to this idea in general. If we preserve the pre-2002 citations I think this would be alright. I also think the Chronicle quotation is useful. I don't think this is a POV issue at all, though I understand your point about the word "numerous." The citations do make it clear he is being cited as a middle east expert. I was not claiming or trying to claim that he was "popular" as a result of these citations. I think this discussion belongs on this page, btw, but I appreciate the suggestions. csloat 02:55, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I did not think you were trying to make a point bout him being popular, but I thought that the other editor might read it that way. I figured you wanted it known that he was not a "new" element on the scene. I figure that your other editor wants to demonstrate the power of his blog. I think that these two concepts are accommodated. I do not take any ownership of the text I put up, so if it is roughly close to what you think you could accept and if he also thinks it is close to what he can accept, maybe you can refine it to an agreeable position. If not, maybe something else will come up. I am starting to think that the key is to think positively of the other person and do your best to give them their point while retaining yours as well. --Blue Tie 04:22, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I just noticed the reply by theronj. I see it as approximately in the same vein as my suggestion though perhaps stripped a bit more bare. --Blue Tie 04:24, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

The problem I see with those suggestions is that they are still OR. It's a synthesis of published material serving to advance a position -that of Cole being some sort of a media commentator previous to his blog. The actual content of the citations are not used, simply their existence is used to advance this point. This is also predicated on an extremely dubious reading of the original passage that "we not pretend that Cole never was considered an expert until his blog got 200,000 visitors, as Armon's edit implies." This is frankly nonsense, both in terms of it being "my" edit, and what it supposedly implies about his "expertise". The article makes very clear what his expertise is in Background, education, appointments and awards and Academic interests before the reader even gets to the Commentator on Middle Eastern affairs section. Again, I will appeal to the citations, they clearly state that:

1. "Because of his presence on the Internet, journalists, for the first time, began to take notice and turned to him and his Web page as a resource." [1]
2. "With the debut of his Web log, Informed Comment, four years ago, Juan R.I. Cole became arguably the most visible commentator writing on the Middle East today." [2]
3. "Cole’s online weblog, “Informed Comment,” has made him a minor celebrity and a controversial figure for his outspoken leftist opinions." [3]
4. "Cole started his blog, which he called Informed Comment and subtitled Thoughts on the Middle East, History, and Religion, in April 2002. It quickly established itself as a popular source of information on the Middle East, attracting a reported 200,000 page-views per month. Informed Comment also caught the eye of journalists, earning Cole dozens of mentions in the country's top dailies and newsweeklies, an hour-long appearance on NPR's "Fresh Air," and 14 appearances on the "NewsHour" with Jim Lehrer. The Village Voice advised its readers, "If you're not already visiting Juan Cole's Informed Comment blog (juancole.com) on a daily basis, now's the time to get in the habit," while L.A. Weekly called Cole's blog "a must-read for anyone seriously interested in Iraq." In 2003, Informed Comment won the 2003 Koufax Award for best expert blog, and, last year, Cole was even asked to testify before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on the fissures within Iraqi society and his ideas for creating a stable Iraqi government." [4] reprinted here

As you can see, the issue of "causality" is easily settled by the citations. There is no "chicken and the egg" problem, and the fact that Cole wasn't a media commentator of any note before his blog says absolutely nothing concerning his expertise. There is also no justification for pointing to a status pre-blog, that he clearly did not have. <<-armon->> 03:40, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

The causality that I see is that the blog made him exceptionally popular. That is all I can see from these citations. They do not speak to his expertise but to his popularity and only after the blog started. However, none of them say that he was not an expert and none of them say that he was not known before the blog. The only one that might possibly say THAT is the first one where it says journalists began to take notice. And I saw that as not having to be read as strictly literal. --Blue Tie 04:58, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

OK I've added in links to the cites. Should have done that in the fist place -sorry. What I find particularly silly about this is that Cole himself attributes his status as a media commentator to his blog. See the full page here:

"Like the history that he teaches, Juan Cole’s emergence as a 21st century media phenomenon is the product of convergence. Geopolitics and technology and professional pursuits have combined to transform a once-obscure university professor into an analyst hundreds of thousands of people are turning to as an alternative source of information regarding the war in Iraq.

There was a time not long ago when the opinion pieces Cole submitted to magazines and newspapers would go unpublished. No one had much interest in the insights being offered by this University of Michigan history professor who made study of the Middle East and its religions his specialty....

...Cole relates his trajectory in a matter-of-fact way, with no trace of a braggart in his tone.

As Cole points out, e-mails, by nature, are “ephemeral. You send them and they are gone.” And they have a relatively narrow audience.

By the winter of 2001-02, however, blogging as a phenomenon was beginning to take off, and Cole, who describes himself as “very wired,” was there at the start, ready to ride that technological wave as it began to form.

It was, at that point, a “relatively minor sort of thing,” he explains, nothing more than a hobby. The Iraq war came in the spring of 2003, and he began focusing attention on that. Still, his blog remained relatively obscure. That all changed the following year when, following the capture of Saddam, a “huge pilgrimage from Baghdad to the holy city of Karbala took place. There were thousands and thousands of people flagellating themselves and chanting, and the American media and the American public suddenly said, ‘Who are these people?’”

With one of his specialties being the modern history of Shiite Islam, Cole could answer those questions. Because of his presence on the Internet, journalists, for the first time, began to take notice and turned to him and his Web page as a resource.

A flurry of media appearances occurred, and his blog began gaining wider notice. The site, which would get just a few hundred hits each month when first begun, steadily attracted more readers...

...Other Web blogs were taking notice and posting links to Informed Comment. And suddenly, instead of having submissions rejected, editors were calling, asking him to write opinion pieces.

“I found out that it is much better when they ask you to write something,” he laughs."

(emphasis mine) Maybe sloat just didn't read the cites I gave him? I don't know. <<-armon->> 05:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

No need for personal attacks, Armon. I could just as easily ask whether you've read the arguments I typed here on this page, since you seem to be ignoring them. The issue, to be clear, is not whether Cole's blog led to an increase in his media presence -- on that we agree. The issue is whether that relationship is causal or more complicated (e.g., his media presence, to repeat myself, also led to an increase in his blog's popularity) and, more importantly, whether we should be summarily deleting evidence of his media presence prior to 2002. csloat 06:14, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

If there was some content of note in those cites I have no objection to using them appropriately, however, the use you propose, isn't. This is because a) he had no notable media presence before blogging, and b) there's no question that it was his blogging which changed this, and c) the evidence and the interpretation that you've advanced for an alternative view is OR. If you have a cite which supports your view, let's see it. <<-armon->> 10:23, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm happy to include the content of those cites, but that is not the point here. The point is that he was cited as an expert by the media at those times, and the cites back it up. If you would like the relevant quotations cited too, I'm certain we can do that. csloat 18:26, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Armon's own citations dispute his claim. That he wants to hide sources from before 2002 on the dubious grounds that he can "prove" causality by quoting more recent sources is, in my mind, extremely problematic. First, I see no reason for WP to impute causality, even if we can cite ten sources that do so. Cite the sources and attribute the claims appropriately. Second, Armon's sources themselves dispute this claim. They do not all claim causality; they claim that Cole became a celebrity after his blog appeared. This is an example of the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. In at least one case - which I quoted on the project page - the quotation actually cuts both ways, indicating that his blog popularity was driven in part by his media commentary. In the above, Armon cites a source (though without giving us a link, unfortunately) that indicates that Cole's blog was mentioned "in the country's top dailies and newsweeklies..." That's exactly my point -- the mass media commentary became an advertisement for Cole's blog, so causality, again, is more complex than Armon would like to make it. Third, he is deleting a factual statement that is well backed up with five sources (and could easily be backed up with double that), based on his assertion that "he clearly did not have" a "pre-blog" status. The factual statement that he deletes, however, does not claim that -- it says that he was cited in several sources prior to 2002. That is a factually accurate and notable claim. csloat 04:07, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I think that Armon makes a good case that the blog helped him become more popular. I can see where you are saying it goes both ways, and that is true, but simplistically (and that is best) the blog supported him and was the source of popularity per those quotes.

But I do not quite understand. Let me ask a few questions:

Is there an issue about whether he is an expert or not?

Is there an issue about whether he was a commentator before his blog?

Is there an issue about how popular he was before his blog?

Is there an issue about what made him popular?

--Blue Tie 04:58, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

First, I don't deny that the blog made him more popular. My suggested version of the page said exactly that, in words that did not create the sense of a strict one-way causality. My version accurately reports that after his blog was published, he was sought after more. Armon and I both agree on that point. Armon, however, would like to go beyond this point, and censor all mention of his expertise being cited prior to April 2002. That is one issue. The other issue is that Armon wants WP to say that the only reason Cole was cited was because of his blog. To be honest, I'm at a loss as to why he wants to do this. To answer your questions directly -- #1 - I don't think there is an issue; surely Armon agrees he is an expert. #2 -- That seems to be the issue; Armon wants the citations from pre-blog days censored. #3 -- I don't think that's a question; both armon and I would agree he was more popular after his blog. #4 may be an issue, as Armon would like to claim, in an example of post hoc reasoning, that his blog was the sole reason for Cole's popularity. Hope this makes sense. csloat 05:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I object to OR. If it's post hoc reasoning, you'll need to take it up with Cole himself.

"It so happens that as a result of my Web log, the Middle East Journal had invited me to contribute for the fall 2003 issue. When the Senate staff of the Foreign Relations Committee did a literature search on Muqtada al-Sadr and his movement, mine was the only article that came up. Senate staff and some of the senators, themselves, read it and were eager to have my views on the situation." [5]

<<-armon->> 10:23, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

You, not Cole, are the one insisting on post hoc reasoning. If you want to quote Cole to that effect I have no objection. I do object to Wikipedia stating something that is manifestly untrue just because you can find a quote by Cole that backs up a tangential point. The quote above does nnot state that Cole did not have media appearances prior to 2002. All it states is that the Senate found his article in the Middle East Journal and read it. So his blog led to a MEJ article which led to Senate testimony. I'm willing to accept that but it really doesn't have anything to do with the controversy here. csloat 18:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Armon, this may surprise you but in a way, you might be the one doing the OR. This quote says that as a result of the blog, he was invited to do certain things. It does not speak to his past nor does it even speak to his popularity. So be careful about how hard you want to push the OR thing.

But let me ask you to respond to the same four questions I asked of csloat. --Blue Tie 11:06, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I would be surprised if I might be the one doing the OR, but there's little chance of that given the evidence.

To address your questions:

Is there an issue about whether he is an expert or not?

His expertise on some of topics he covers on his blog has been challenged, but the issue of his expertise is only relevant in the sense that journalists went to Cole, rather than some other blogger without Cole's bona fides.

Is there an issue about whether he was a commentator before his blog?

No. There's no evidence that he was a commentator of any note. There are no cites stating this. Cole himself said he couldn't get his opinions published.

Is there an issue about how popular he was before his blog?

No. He's described as "a once-obscure university professor" [6] who "enjoyed anonymity outside his professional circle." [7]

Is there an issue about what made him popular?

No. It's clear that it was his blog which attracted the attention of journalists, journals, and led to an appearance before the US congress. <<-armon->> 12:10, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think I was clear enough. I meant "is there an issue between you and csloat" on those questions. But judging from you answers I can see there is one big one. So tell me this: Why is it so important that we recognize his obscurity prior to the blog? --Blue Tie 13:00, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:A What do the sources say concerning his fame prior to his blog? <<-armon->> 14:03, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Nothing, but since nobody is arguing that he had "fame prior to his blog," it really isn't an issue, now is it? To respond to your responses to the questions -- #1 is kind of silly, since nobody has raised any legitimate challenge to his expertise; he is certainly credentialed and has a position and is almost universally referred to as an "expert" on these issues. #2 - Armon is just wrong, and the only way he can justify his position is by continually deleting relevant citations from before 2002. He says Cole couldn't get his opinions published, but in fact they were published, though of course not nearly as frequently before 2002. #3 - The "once-obscure" quote may be accurate, but he was not so obscure that his opinion wasn't sought out by the likes of Newsweek as far back as 1990. And #4 - again, causality does not just go one way here, and Armon's statement is a distortion of reality. Sure, his blog attracted attention of journalists, but it only became popular after journalists then published references to his blog.

Of course, armon and I do not have to agree on the answers to these questions; all this can be solved rather simply by not deleting the accurate references from prior to 2002 and by not falsely attributing a clear causality when things are more complicated than that. Armon's insistence that his blog led to his fame is really beside the point -- I'm not questioning that; what I am questioning is the claim that he had no media appearances prior to 2002, a position that is easily shown to be totally false. csloat 18:34, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

csloat, on #2, I would point out that Armon's statement was not that he was not a commentator but that he was not a commentator "of note". Do you believe the evidence indicates he was "of note" or do you believe the evidence indicates he was not of note, obscure or some other similar term prior to the blog?

armon, on #3, do you agree that his opinion made its way into magazines such as newsweek, and that the media did quote him on the matters of his expertise prior to his larger popularity? Is the only issue on this matter one of how "notable" he was prior to the blog?

I have one more question but I prefer not to guess at your answers before I ask it. --Blue Tie 23:22, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes I believe he was a commentator "of note" enough for Newsweek and other reliable sources; that may be entirely consistent with the claim that he was "obscure." I don't think we need to characterize it with any particular adjective; simply noting that he was occasionally cited prior to 2002 is enough. csloat 01:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Maybe this is the heart of the issue. Let's see what Armon says. --Blue Tie 02:14, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The text sloat objected to makes no claim that he was quoted exclusively post-blog. The problem does appear to be that it also makes no claims for his nobility as a "commentator" pre-blog. The problem is that sloats opinion is based on OR and puffs up a status he didn't have. He's entitled to that opinion, however, he's not entitled to bias the article according to it. <<-armon->> 02:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, that is a somewhat indirect response to my question. (You seem upset with csloat personally and that might make it harder for you to come to agreement.) As far as I can tell, from your answer, you do NOT seem to agree that his opinion made its way into magazines such as Newsweek or that the media did not quote him on matters of his expertise prior to his larger popularity. Do I have thar right? --Blue Tie 02:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

This is going in circles. I'll await comment from the moderator. <<-armon->> 03:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually no, it was heading right to a point. I was trying to confirm whether the issue was a matter of fact or a matter of opinion. I am sorry you did not feel good about answering directly and have decided to stop communicating. I was trying to help. --Blue Tie 03:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I understand that, I'm finding it a bit frustrating because I thought I'd already made my position clear. So, I'll restate it. Even if Cole was quoted at some stage prior to his blog, it had no bearing on his notably as a media commentator. This is not my opinion, I have given multiple sources to that effect. Sloat's cites are offline and I don't know what the precise content of them is, however, he is not quoting their content, he is using their mere existence in order to advance a subjective view which is contradicted by the sources which actually address Cole's rise to fame. <<-armon->> 03:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I am happy to quote the content of any source I have cited. There is no "subjective view" I am trying to "advance" here, nor am I commenting on Cole's "rise to fame." I am not commenting on my opinion about his notability. I am simply citing the fact that he was cited by several sources prior to 2002. That is a fact, not an opinion, and it is easily verified. Like Armon, I agree that the mediator's view would be helpful at this point, but I see no need to shut down the dialogue.csloat 03:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

If your edit, and the cites you use to support it, has no point, then please see WP:NOT#IINFO. If it truly is the case that you aren't advancing a POV on the subject, then there's no reason to continue. You can drop the issue and stop wasting everybody's time. <<-armon->> 06:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Your comment seems to pretend not to understand what I'm saying, but I'll take you at your word and clarify. I am not trying to advance a particular view; I am trying to advance a factual assessment of Cole's status. You are trying to erase evidence that Cole had a minor but noticeable media presence prior to 2002; I am trying to prevent that information from being censored. This is not about "advancing a POV," and your implication that the only information relevant to wikipedia is that which "advances a POV" is something I consider insulting to the project (hence my first response to you, which I just deleted). Your comment that I am "wasting everybody's time" is likewise insulting both to me and to everyone else who takes this seriously. If you still truly don't understand my point, please re-read my opening statement, which can be found here. I think it was pretty clear. csloat 08:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

(Unindent)Thanks for your reply, Armon. I have one last question for each of you. Or to clarify, it is two questions that get to one thought, sort of like two sides to a coin. Here it is:

Armon: What is the benefit or purpose of not mentioning his prior interaction with the media? At the same time, what is the harm in mentioning it?

csloat: What is the benefit or purpose of mentioning his prior interaction with the media? At the same time, what is the harm in removing that information?

Thanks. --17:44, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

The harm in removing the information is that the wikipedia article paints a false picture of the subject of a WP:BLP. Especially given wording that falsely imputes single causality; it makes it sound like Cole was never cited in the media before his blog became very popular. The fact is, he has been cited about a dozen times going back to 1990, as an expert on Middle east issues. I believe this point was made in my opening statement here. csloat 18:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I want to try to restate, to see if I've got it. If we fail to mention that he was cited prior to his blog it gives the sense that he was not a recognized expert prior to the blog. This may make his expertise to be more "flash in the pan" rather than deep. Did I get that right? --Blue Tie 01:35, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think that sounds right. csloat 04:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

OK. I think that Armon has decided not to play! --Blue Tie 23:01, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm simply waiting for someone to explain how sloat's OR isn't in fact OR. I don't think this is what WP editors should be engaging in, I don't think we should be attempting to "split the difference" between OR and proper sources which address the issue, and I don't think we should be injecting bias via OR in a BLP even if it's meant to be "positive". In any case, his academic expertise is a separate issue to that of his role as a media commentator/pundit/public intellectual -not every academic has this additional role, obviously, and it has no bearing on how much an "expert" they are or aren't. <<-armon->> 12:42, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok. There is a question on the table though. Could you please answer that question?

And as for csloat's OR, as you describe it, I would point out that you have only declared the OR to exist. You have not showed that it actually exists. And to a degree just looking at it that way sets it up as a binary issue. Someone is right. Someone is wrong. Is it possible to compromise? --Blue Tie 15:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

The "harm" is that it's OR. The "harm" is also that it produces bias. I've now pointed out repeatedly that the content of sloat's cites do not address the issue of his role as a media commentator. That is, unless I'm wrong, in which case, I would have expected him to quote the sources by now. <<-armon->> 22:46, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

So let me see if I can restate your issue in a way that is acceptable to you and proves that I understand your point. I think you are saying that describing him as a source for the media prior to his blog, makes him appear to be too important and reliable a source prior to his blogging and makes his blog look incidental to some larger expertise. Have I restated it correctly? --Blue Tie 01:15, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

You still haven't explained how it is OR; you've simply split hairs about a claim ("his role as a media commentator") that I don't make. The claim that I make - and that is backed up by the sources, any one of which I am able to quote if you have a specific question - is that Cole was cited in the media several times prior to 2002. Again, I'm not sure why this is contentious at all; the argument that it "produces bias" is quite laughable, in fact, since it is objectively an accurate statement of fact. csloat 23:31, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Provide reliable sources for your claim that his status as a media commentator predates his blog. <<-armon->> 00:12, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

It appears that you are asking for him to provide reliable sources to support a claim he has not made. Isn't that a bit irrelevant to the problem if he has not made that claim?--Blue Tie 01:11, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, then the issue he raises is an irrelevancy. <<-armon->> 01:16, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I did not check the article citations, but didn't he link to a few instances?--Blue Tie 01:21, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I've explained about 5 or 6 times now why this is not OR; my explanation is also in my opening statement. And, as Blue Tie indicates, you have not explained what makes it OR other than asserting it. I have not done any original research to find that Cole was cited in various articles, nor have I synthesized them in any illegitimate way. csloat 19:13, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Armon appears to be saying that you did not provide any cites that he was a media commentator or source prior to his blog. I thought you did, but I did not check. If there are no such sources or cites, then it would be Original Research as he says. If there are such cites, then at least that much is not Original Research. --Blue Tie 01:23, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I am not making any claim that is not sourced. I provided four instances of media citations from Cole to establish the claim that "Cole was cited in the mainstream media as a Middle East expert numerous times before 2002." We have discussed problems with the word "numerous," and I am happy to change that to "several" or even to say "Cole was occasionally cited in the mainstream media as a middle east expert"... But there is no OR involved in evidencing that statement with four (or ten) citations from the mainstream media. If you prefer specific quotations we can go there too. But Armon is creating an objection to claims that have not been made.csloat 19:34, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Do the cites you have make some comment on his status as a media commentator which pre-date his blog? Yes or No?

That's not the issue at all. What you pose is a false dilemma. csloat 11:58, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll take that as a "No". You clearly don't have sources which support your POV, just your OR. <<-armon->> 13:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Click the link, Armon. You're simply not dealing with the issue here; your self-righteous posturing is completely beside the point. The four sources I've included - and I will happily add more - clearly establish the point that was being made in the sentence above. csloat 17:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

OR is not "fixed" with more OR. <<-armon->> 22:19, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

The problem Armon, is that you are claiming that csloat is taking a position that he is not taking. He has said he is not trying to describe his "status". You keep asking for him to support a reference to "status" Csloat is not claiming any status per se, only that he was quoted for commentary prior to the blog. If you do not address exactly what csloat is saying you are not really engaged in the discussion properly. Now, I understand, you will probably consider that "Status" is presumed or implied. But, that does not matter. All that matters is what is actually put in the text. It is ok for users to read and make their own minds up. That is per WP:NPOV. Perhaps your concern is that it gives him too much credit. A solution for that would be to add a bit of text where Cole himself describes his pre-blog reputation as minor, if you can find such a quote. Meanwhile I have come up with this possible solution:

Cole was cited by the press as a Middle East expert as early as 1990. However, his popularity as a source of information was modest prior to 2003, when increased public interest in his weblog led to greater attention from the mainstream media.

I don't have a problem with this. csloat 00:25, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Splitting the Difference

As I've said before, I object to splitting the difference between OR and properly sourced material -especially when one contradicts the other. Also, sloat has presented no evidence that Cole was "cited by the press as a Middle East expert". If Cole was quoted commenting on the varsity football team, that obviously wouldn't count. <<-armon->> 00:10, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

The four cites I gave are evidence of that, and I will happily provide more. I would not include any cites of him commenting on the football team or anything like that, as you are well aware. csloat 00:24, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Armon, from what I can read, you will not recognize any edits that are not in full agreement with your position. Furthermore, you continue to call things Original Research that are not Original Research. This is a failure to engage constructively. --Blue Tie 04:44, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Getting back on track

The editors here have my thanks for their patience. As noted at my user talk page, my online time this week has been very limited. My intervention has been requested because progress has stalled.

One thing that's unusual here is how most of the discussion has taken place at the outside comment page rather than at the page reserved for the two participants. The original way this had been set up was for primary discussion to take place between the two editors on the main mediation page, for dialog with me to take place at that talk page, and for outside commentary to happen here.

To answer one question I received the other day, if things don't get resolved here you could agree to disagree and go back to editing or you could try arbitration. If problems continue an arbitration case might open anyway at the request of a third party. If that alternative happens, any tentative progress you make here might help the arbitration committee reach its decision about how to handle your differences.

The sticking point appears to be disagreement on the definition of WP:NOR. Am I correct in that understanding? We aren't empowered to determine among ourselves what policy actually is, but we might phrase the difference of opinion into a nutshell form that everybody here agrees is acceptable and ask the community to clarify.

If there are other sticking points please specify them for me and I'll do my best to help solutions. CEM is designed to be simpler and more dignified than full arbitration. I hope this process works for you. Durova^Charge! 22:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there's disagreement on the definition of OR. I think there is disagreement on whether a certain case falls under that category. In my estimation (and Blue Tie's, apparently), this case does not fall under that category. Armon claims to believe that it does, but in order to make that claim valid, he winds up distorting the case itself (see discussion above). csloat 22:38, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

There's an easy test for original research, and it doesn't require agonizing, or lengthy arguments. Put a {{fact}} template beside any claim, and see if if can be verified to a reliable source. So, with the following sentence:

Cole was cited by the press as a Middle East expert as early as 1990. However, his popularity as a source of information was modest prior to 2003, when increased public interest in his weblog led to greater attention from the mainstream media.

If you can find reliable sources to back up these claims, then you do not have original research. If the "reliable source" for these claims is "a wikipedia editor did some research, and this is what he thought was the case", then you have original research. So, for the first request, you need to find some article that says "Cole was cited by the press as a Middle East expert as early as 1990." For the second request, you need to find some article that says "His popularity before 2003 was modest". etc. Put a name, source, citation in place of those templates and the problem goes away. Don't, and the claims goes away. It's pretty simple. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:46, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)What needs to be clarified is this: Does the statement "Cole was cited in the mainstream media as a Middle East expert numerous times before 2002." needs explicit sourcing, or whether we can draw the conclusion on our own based on seeing the four examples, or is this OR?

If we are allowed to draw that conclusion, the next issue is examining what the cites say. Sloat has presented nothing of the actual content of the cites, except to claim that they support sloat's claim. We don't even have the titles of the articles sloat has referenced.

In any case, it looks to me that the sentence fails Jay's test. <<-armon->> 04:01, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

This has gotten a bit ridiculous. I'm happy to provide the titles and the actual content of any piece you like, but they really don't seem to be at issue here. At issue is the statement "Cole was cited by the press as a Middle East expert as early as 1990" (Blue Tie's compromise); certainly, the citations show that he was. The so-called "test" here is a bit of a silly exercise in splitting hairs -- if the question is "was Cole cited as an expert between 1990-2002?" it is easily answered by citations between those dates that refer to Cole as an expert or cite his expertise. Saying that you must find an article that says "Cole was cited in an article between 1990 and 2002" appears to me as absurd. csloat 04:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe that at its heart, the issue is:

Armon says: It does not matter, if you find sources that show him being cited as an expert prior to 1993. if you do not find a source that explicitly says he was cited as a mideast expert prior to 1993, then you cannot say so because otherwise you are drawing your own conclusion -- which is original research.

Csloat says: I have explicit instances showing where he was cited as a mideast expert prior to 1993. It is not unreasonable to draw the minor conclusion that he was cited as one, when there are sources showing he was so cited, even if we cannot find a source claiming he was so cited.--Blue Tie 09:13, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, exactly, though I am saying a bit more - that it is absurd to have a standard "you must cite a source stating that he was cited." Such a standard, taken to its logical extreme, would exclude any quote or fact from any news source unless there was another news source commenting that the previous news source had actually published that quote or fact. csloat 09:27, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:NOR is pretty strict, and only allows for the most basic kinds of deductions. Simple arithmetical deductions can be made (for example, percentages), but most other kinds of deductions cannot. If we look at the first claim made in the contentious sectio, the best source is if someone simply states it as a fact in a book somewhere: "By the early 1990s the press cited Cole as a Middle East expert". Then you refer to the book, the page, and mention who made the claim, and you're done. But what if you're aching to make this claim, but don't actually have a source that says it? Well, if you have a 1990 article from the New York Post saying "According to Middle East expert Juan Cole...", then you can say "Cole was cited as a Middle East expert by the New York Post in 1990." If you have several citations referring to Cole as a "Middle East expert" from the early 90s, then you can say "Cole was cited as a Middle East expert by a number of sources in the early 90s". If you have many such citations, referring to him as a Middle East expert, then you can simply say he was recognized as a Middle east expert by the press at that time. However, if all you have is him being quoted in a newspaper, you certainly cannot make the leap to him being described as an "expert". Jayjg ^(talk) 21:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

The term "expert" is actually used in at least one case; I'll have to re-read to see if there are others. In several cases he is referred to as a Middle East historian. This isn't the same as the argument Armon is making of course. I have no problem with being specific on these things; I do have a problem with phony OR claims about well-sourced material. csloat 23:31, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Please see [8]. It seems very likely that the topic Cole was quoted on pre-blog was in fact Bahá'í -and/or his dispute with the Bahá'í authorities. An expert on Bahá'í is not the same as an expert on the ME. Sloat still hasn't presented anything other than the dates and publications which supposedly make his case. <<-armon->> 00:00, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

It does not "seem very likely" that the topic was Bahai. I have told you over and over that he is cited on Middle East and not Bahai, or on football games, or anything like that. You may benefit from reading WP:AGF. Second, I provided quotations above - Cole is referred to as a middle east "expert" in at least one article, and as a "middle east historian" (not a "bahai historian") in several others. I have also already indicated that one of the interviews was about the Gulf War, clearly a middle east topic having nothing to do with Bahai or football. I will happily include titles of articles when we put the material on the page, as I've said before. Are we finally done with this dispute? And, more to the point, are we going to have to go through CEM or similar DR every time I suggest an article for the page? csloat 06:58, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

What specific sources would you like to use, and what exactly do they say about Cole? Jayjg ^(talk) 15:51, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

See below, and above. This is getting tedious. csloat 19:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe my sentence was very clear; what exactly do they say about Cole. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:31, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe my answer was clear. They quote him as a "Middle East expert" and a "Middle East historian." The full cites with titles are below. Frankly, your hostility is totally uncalled for here. I have more than satisfied the requirements of WP:NOR, even in your distorted reading of them. We can certainly move to direct quotes from each and every article if you think that is notable, but that is beyond the scope of the CEM here, which focuses on whether this material should be deleted or not. I think we have all come to a consensus that it should not be deleted; nitpicking about what this or that citation actually says can come after you unprotect the article and we restore the material that was deleted. csloat 22:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

We already know he's a historian and that information is fully cited and presented in the article. You are not answering the question and are refusing to provide evidence to support your view. OTOH, I have presented evidence that a) Cole was "obscure" and not a notable media commentator previous to blogging, b) that his blog attracted the interest of journalists who then came to him, and c) Cole himself stating that he couldn't get his opinion pieces published prior to his Internet fame. I don't have a problem with an alternative wording which makes these 3 points clear, but anything else is OR. <<-armon->> 02:50, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

The point is not that he is a historian; the point is that he is a historian who was cited in the media before 2002. That is what is at issue here, and your a, b, and c are simply not relevant to this point. I have provided evidence in the form of four citations with quotations. I can provide specific quotes from the sources as well, but we haven't established any need for those at the moment. All that is at issue is whether we can make the claim that Cole was cited in the media prior to 2002. If we have settled that dispute - and it appears we have - then the article can be unlocked and at that point, we can decide which quotes are notable enough to include as well as the citations. csloat 03:22, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

full citations

I hope the following puts this ridiculous argument to rest:

• Melinda Beck, et al., "The Case Against War," Newsweek (29 October 1990) p. 24;
• "The Gulf War," Los Angeles Times (13 February 1991) p. 8;
• Scott Shane, "Muslim world suffers by actions of terrorists," Baltimore Sun (23 August 1998) p. 1A;
• Bill Schiller, "Locals tied to Al Jihad terror network," Toronto Star (21 October 2001) p. A10.

Again, I find it more than a bit absurd that we should have to go to CEM just to add verifiable citations from reliable sources to this article.csloat 07:06, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Please quote the sentences from them that you think support your point. In other words, what exactly do they say about Cole. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:30, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

See above. I'm happy to quote specifics when the article is unlocked, but at this point it isn't necessary to settle the dispute. csloat 22:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually it would help a lot to see the full relevant quotes from those sources. Jayjg's requests and suggestions have been right on target. And to Commodore Sloat, please be understanding of our constraints as an open edit site. The no original research policy is rigid because some editors attempt to draw bizarre conclusions from verifiable and reliable sources. Durova^Charge! 08:03, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

If the statement just said that he was quoted prior to 2003 and did not address his expertise, would these references be enough?--Blue Tie 08:14, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I understand (and agree with) the OR policy. I agree it should be strict, but I am not trying to extrapolate in any way from the citations. That much is obvious with or without quotations from the cites. The thing here is that the issue of him being an "expert" was not part of the original dispute, and I don't have a problem with discussing different wording (however, as I have said, he is quoted as a "Middle East expert" in the Toronto Star (21 October 2001)). The problem I have is with the wholesale deletion of this information. If the only problem Armon had with the info is a nitpick about the word "expert," then why did he delete all of the citations instead of tinkering with the wording? Had he tinkered with the wording we would have come to a settlement long ago and not had to escalate the dispute to CEM. Frankly I think he is simply moving the goal post here; I note that the dispute about the term "expert" does not appear in either of our opening statements.

I have so far resisted giving further quotations from these sources for two main reasons -- (1) the dispute is not about the content of any particular quotations; the dispute is over whether we should censor the fact that Cole was quoted in the media prior to 2001. I feel the demands that I quote particulars is a distraction from that dispute, and is just a way of prolonging the page protection. If we have resolved the dispute over actually citing the articles, let us unprotect the page and begin tinkering with the wording. (2) the citations are enough to document the statement. If there is a question about it -- like Armon's rather insulting suggestion that it is "likely" that these articles are about bahai (or, earlier, about sports) -- all anyone has to do is look them up. I provided all of the information necessary to look up the articles.

All that said, I'm going to go ahead and provide quotations and comments anyway just so we can move on. To respond to Blue Tie's comment - I don't think it's unreasonable to say that he was cited as an expert, but I am opening to other wording. The point is, he is not being approached by reporters as a random person-in-the-street; he is being quoted because he has some expertise on the issues being discussed.

• Melinda Beck, et al., "The Case Against War," Newsweek (29 October 1990) p. 24

quotes him as "University of Michigan Middle East historian Juan Cole."

• "The Gulf War," Los Angeles Times (13 February 1991) p. 8

quotes him as "a Mideast professor at the University of Michigan"

While these two don't call him an "expert," they clearly cite him because of his expertise on the Middle East. The first quote discusses Saddam's oil revenues and the various political factions in Iraq; the second explains why Saddam Hussein is referred to as "Saddam" rather than as "Hussein."

• Scott Shane, "Muslim world suffers by actions of terrorists," Baltimore Sun (23 August 1998) p. 1A

quote: "The Sunni tradition of Islam has been marked by a great deal of moderation and compassion," says Juan Cole, a professor of modern Middle Eastern history at the University of Michigan, who spent a decade living in several Muslim countries. "And in history, the Shiites were even quieter than the Sunni. Cole says that no mainstream Islamic clergy, from such centers of Islamic theology as Al-Azhar University in Cairo, have issued a fatwa, or religious decree, justifying attacks against Americans." Clearly refers to his expertise not only as a professor of modern Middle East but also as someone who lived in Muslim countries for 10 years.

• Bill Schiller, "Locals tied to Al Jihad terror network," Toronto Star (21 October 2001) p. A10.

"The 1998 merger between Egyptian Al Jihad and bin Laden's Al Qaeda was a 'transforming' moment," says Prof. Juan Cole, a Middle East expert from the University of Michigan. "It brought Al Qaeda hundreds of dedicated activists with experience in fighting an insurgency, as well as bases of operation in a number of countries." Clearly cites him as "a Middle East expert."

Again, I am open to tinkering with the wording here; my objections as spelled out in my opening statement are not about changing the wording but rather about the wholesale deletion of relevant sourced information. I hope we can move on. csloat 09:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

All right. Regarding the microproblem of particular wording and designation, I'll agree that it's appropriate to say the press regarded Cole as an expert as far back as the early 1990s. All of these are major publications and the context is clear: a general readership article that quotes a university professor and states that the topic relates to the professor's academic specialty is presenting that professor as an expert.

Moving on to the macroproblem, during the past several months it looks like you've both gotten bogged in a series of finely worded policy debates. Usually it's very tough for an outside editor to determine what's going on, except for when the frustration level rises so high that civility breaks down. How do you envision yourselves breaking out of that cycle? Durova^Charge! 15:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, we still need to see more of the first two quotations to be able to come to any conclusions regarding how Cole was viewed; was he cited in a very narrow context? In addition, the first three citations describe him as a "historian" or a "professor" or both; were they asking him questions about the history of the Middle East, or the current political situation? Finally, four citations as such over a period of twelve years isn't all that many; are these just a sample of all such citations, or is this the sum total? Jayjg ^(talk) 22:26, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

The above quotations are more than clear; only a bizarre assumption of bad faith would lead someone to speculate that these quotes are other than what they appear. The first two quote Cole's specific opinions on the Gulf War; more specifically, the first quote discusses Saddam's oil revenues and the various political factions in Iraq; the second explains why Saddam Hussein is referred to as "Saddam" rather than as "Hussein." I stated this very clearly above; perhaps you missed it. They are brief quotations in each case. As for the second question "were they asking him questions about the history of the Middle East, or the current political situation?", they were clearly asking about the current situation as it is affected by history. Again, this is very clear in what I wrote above regarding all three citations. Your final claim that this "isn't all that many" is really not something I'm terribly interested in debating - it doesn't matter; I have backed off of the word "numerous" already and suggested "occasionally" as a more accurate term to describe the frequency of the citations. This is about half of what I found when researching it (in a relatively cursory manner; I have no doubt a more determined researcher will find a few more), to answer your question directly, but again, I don't think it makes a difference.

To get to the more important question raised by Durova, I think there is an underlying problem here which is that Armon appears to oppose on principle every edit I make, even one as obviously verifiable as this one. This is compounded by the absurd bias of some Wikipedians towards sources that are available on the internet. Sources from print media are discouraged and even treated with hostility. Imagine the above debate occurring about an article in salon.com - it would be absurd to demand angrily to see larger quotations from an article before even allowing that the article may be cited, since all parties could simply click the link and judge for themselves. However, the fact is, it is the same here - any one of the parties to this mediation could easily go to the library or look at an online database like infotrak in order to verify that the citations are accurate. Complaining that it is too much work to look beyond your computer screen is a bit absurd - we are editing an encyclopedia here, not a blog.

Finally, I think part of the problem is that because of the history between Armon and I, he has a tendency to react with hostility and revert-warring to every change I make to certain articles, no matter how minor and no matter how verifiable. These edit wars are often over ridiculously minor nitpicks like this one -- as I've said over and over, I'm open to talking about the wording, but the wholesale deletion of information is totally unjustified. I'm not sure how to address that, as it is my perception that Armon is determined to continue with the hostility and edit warring, and that he is even willing to engage in systematically distorted communication in order to do so. I'm trying to appreciate that he feels the same way about me, but I'm not sure where this gets us. csloat 23:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, they're not clear. If the sources were online, then the various editors could, indeed, click on the links, and make their own judgement as to what the source is saying. However, they are not online: How can one properly assess the relevance and import of a citation without having the full context? Rather than devoting 1000 words to avoiding giving the full citations, why not just give them? This reluctance to provide very basic information critical to assessing article content strikes me as bizarre at best, and is undoubtedly contributing to the protracted disputes on this page. Please just give the proper and full citations, not only to make it possible for all parties to examine them, but perhaps more importantly, to show that your intent is indeed to lessen conflict, rather than protract it. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:19, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, they are clear. This is exactly what I'm talking about, Jay. You ask, "How can one properly assess the relevance and import of a citation without having the full context?" One can simply go to the library or check a database and read the article oneself. I have provided the full context, and explained it carefully, including "proper and full citations." I'm not sure what else you want. csloat 23:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

The last two citations provide all the words surrounding the reference to Cole. The first two do not. Please do so for the first two, so that all parties can decide for themselves what the context is. It's an entirely reasonable request, and your continued attempts to avoid doing so unfortunately give the impression that you are either trying to hide something or scuttle mediation. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:49, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

You must be joking. I will do so, but your charge is both ludicrous and offensive. I have explained everything above. And your claim that "all parties" are not privy to information that has been published and in libraries for years is anti-intellectual, to say the least. If you think I am hiding something, go to the library, or indicate what you think it is. It is insulting to start with the presupposition that I am lying. And I am curious why you have not even attempted to hold the other party to the mediation to the same presupposition? And you have ignored my essential point, which is that this information is not relevant to the current mediation at all. That said, here is what you asked for:

• Melinda Beck, et al., "The Case Against War," Newsweek (29 October 1990) p. 24

"Gaining the Kuwaiti oilfields means little if Iraq can't sell the product. Saddam has also used oil revenues to pay off restive internal factions. "If you take away this regime's ability to throw patronage around, then the next time there are riots, how is it going to deal with them?" asks University of Michigan Middle East historian Juan Cole."

• "The Gulf War," Los Angeles Times (13 February 1991) p. 8

"According to the Detroit News, part of the preference probably stems from the fact that Saddam is more distinctive than Hussein. "A lot of people (in the Arab world) are called Hussein," says Juan Cole, a Mideast professor at the University of Michigan. "

csloat 01:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Section break: Mediator's response

Unless Armon contests the accuracy of Commodore Sloat's transcriptions, WP:AGF compels us to accept them at face value. Two slightly different questions are at play here: one is whether the press regarded Cole as an expert on the Middle East during the 1990s; the other is what specific type of expertise he possessed. The latter remains unresolved from the quotes Sloat provided, but only the former seems to have been at issue in this particular disagreement over wording. In my opinion it would push WP:NOR too far to disallow the term expert in this context: it's hardly conceivable that a university professor, quoted within the broad realm of his expertise for a general readership publication, would be anything other than an expert source.

Now it really isn't practical to discuss every facet of this dispute in so much depth. Let's reorient and look for ways to cut this gordian knot. I'm particularly interested in Armon's perspective on this. Commodore Sloat has already commented on what he sees as the larger problem dynamic. Armon, why do you think these discussions have kept getting stalled? Durova^Charge! 01:29, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't seriously doubt that the transcriptions of what sloat's finally deigned to present are accurate. However, and I've run into this problem with him before, in an effort to POV push, or, in this case, to perform OR in support of his POV, he will quote mine. He has also gone so far as to misrepresent offline sources which weren't discovered until I later found the article. See argument here and here.

As I understand it, the burden of proof is on editors for their own edits. Instead of presenting his evidence, he stonewalled and hand-waved for 20 days or so, and I notice that he charged Jayg with the same accusation of "anti-intellectualism" that he's leveled at me for insisting on seeing some evidence. Rather than provide proof for his position, his response is to insist that others get a library card and disprove him. However, if he is later disproved, then it all just becomes a "matter of opinion" -and so it goes on ad nauseam.

If the argument here was about whether or not Cole was an expert, we wouldn't have a problem. The issue is that sloat objected to what the sources said regarding Cole's rise as a media commentator. They clearly attribute Cole's blogging as the factor which led to this. Sloat on the other hand, objects to attributing causality despite this, so, he finds these earlier cites in order to establish that Cole was a media commentator at an earlier time -that his blog simply made him more popular. There are no cites which make this point, therefore, it's OR. Also, if the evidence for his position had been strong, I doubt it would have taken him so long to present it. So yes, given his past behaviour, he has worn out the assumption of good faith. <<-armon->> 02:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Suffice to say that Armon is completely misrepresenting the disputes where he claims I "misrepresented offline sources." I have never misrepresented any offline source; there was one instance where I made an honest mistake on the talk page in a completely tangential discussion, but to claim that my error was a misrepresentation is a severe violation of WP:AGF (and is itself a severe misrepresentation). Besides, if he thinks I am lying about an "offline source," all he has to do is go to the library. I find his refusal to do so, and his disparaging of printed material, absolutely anti-intellectual. I did not "stone wall and hand wave"; what I did was insist on sticking to the issues at hand here, which his and Jayjg's demands had absolutely nothing to do with. The demand that I quote this or that source in full, and then more so, was the ultimate form of hand-waving. The issue here is whether these sources should be censored, and it seems everyone agreed a week or so ago that they should not -- yet Armon has effectively kept them censored (and they still are!) by continually moving the goal post and making extraneous demands. His claim that I objected to what the sources said is a distortion; all anyone needs to do is go back to the opening statements of the CEM to see what both of our positions were. I note that Armon has not responded at all to Durova's question about the larger issues here other than to accuse me of bad faith. Frankly, his accusation is exactly the larger problem I tried to address above. I'm sure we would have a lot less conflict if Armon would take the guidelines at WP:AGF more seriously. csloat 02:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that Armon is saying that you play fast and loose with the actual contents of the cites and so you are not to be trusted just with a cite alone. I guess that is not assuming good faith but he apparently feels that his experiences justify a different view. However, you have already showed that Cole was quoted prior to his blog. Simply saying that cannot be argued against from what I can tell. Maybe a compromise would be to say:

Cole was cited by the press before he began his blog but, his popularity as a source of information increased as his weblog led to greater attention from the mainstream media.

(outdent) In fairness, Armon, do you really think it likely that the full text of those particular sources would yield anything other than support for the statement that refers to Cole as an expert? Even if you've had legitimate misgivings about Commodore Sloat's use of references in the past, it's difficult for me to imagine expertise as anything other than a sensible non-OR designation in those contexts.

And to step back from the particulars once more, how do either of you envision CEM resolving those issues? Although we do our best to be flexible here, right now I'm having trouble seeing how a sysop could step up and impose a simple solution to your WP:NOR and WP:V disagreements in the same way that an administrator could enforce 1RR or civility parole.

We pretty much expect WP:AGF to have some dents and scratches by the time two editors enter this venue. Ideally I'd like to help you find a way to reach a handshake deal. If that isn't realistic in your situation then let's craft a plan B: what sort of enforceable limits would you both accept to prevent your disagreements from getting out of hand? Durova^Charge! 04:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I understand what Armon is saying, Durova; what I am saying is that he is dead wrong. I have not "played fast and loose" with the actual content of any cites; he is distorting what actually happened in order to continue baseless personal insults against my character, and I am sick of it. The reality is that Armon is flat out wrong about those things, and that his personal attacks have been way out of bounds on this issue for a long time -- it is appalling to me that such attacks are countenanced by any admins here. As you point out here, it is very clear from the text of the sources that I have not distorted anything. Beyond that, the presumption should always be that I am not distorting things, rather than that I am. If you have reason to believe I am fabricating a quote, it is your burden to look up the source of the quote and prove that I was lying. Armon is asking for the burden to be the other way around -- he wants offline sources excluded on principle. That principle, as I have stated a couple of times now, is thoroughly anti-intellectual, and I am appalled to see it nonchalantly supported by people who edit an encyclopedia.

To respond to your first question about the wording, I think it is fair to say cole was cited as an expert occasionally in the media prior to his blog. And you apparently think so too. The citations I included should be restored to the article forthwith.

To respond to your broader question, the way for this to proceed productively is for Armon to read and employ the principles spelled out WP:AGF and WP:NPA. Stop jumping on every single edit I make and arrogantly revert-warring until it escalates to mediation. Stop calling me a liar, implicitly and explicitly, every time I do research that involves print sources as well as online sources. Stop turning every minor point into a huge contest of wills. If he would agree to stop doing these things I think we will have a far more productive relationship (I will certainly agree not to do those things either, though I have not been the one doing them). csloat 05:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

As I read it, both editors are in agreement with wikipedia policies including WP:AGF, WP:RS, WP:VER, and WP:NPOV, but interpretations or implementation of those policies are not seen the same (listed in ascending order of concern):

WP:RS is agreed to, and neither party seems to have a problem with the sources cited, if the quotes are correct.

WP:AGF is agreed to, but does not apply because of history between the two editors. Interestingly enough though, AGF is not required under the mediation because a third party is involved whose good faith is assumed.

WP:VER is also agreed to, but Armon questioned the verifiability because s/he was unable to verify them. Csloat provided full context on at least two of the cites in question to sufficient detail that it appears, in these 2 cases, verifiability is not an issue. It may remain an issue for the former two.

WP:NPOV may be invoked on both sides. csloat believes that his/her edits are inherently neutral if factual. It is less clear but it appears to me that Armon feels that the edits are inherently non-neutral because they lend too much weight to the idea that Cole was well-regarded, highly-regarded, widely-regarded, or otherwise acclaimed as an expert or solid reliable source prior to his blog.

Given that, in context the first two matters are not really issues to resolve here, I would suggest that an enforceable solution for this specific one-time issue, include a demonstration of verifiability as csloat has done for two of the quotes, (burden is on the editor making the contributions) and that an Admin/Mediator (or a committee of 3 of them), judge the gray area of NPOV and issue a sort of "judicial" type ruling on this matter, and an edit that conforms to the verified, NPOV judgments. It is possible that once the VER and NPOV issues are ruled upon, the editors could come to agreement.

This does not completely address the longer-term issue of enforceable rules between the two editors on other contributions. --Blue Tie 12:52, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Blue Tie; I have two things here to add -- (1) which citations do not have full context? I believe for all four I have now quoted the entire paragraphs where Cole is mentioned, though none of the quotes were necessary to the original dispute (again, I encourage people to check the opening statements of both parties. (2) the larger dispute is still a problem; I believe that if Armon insists on ignoring AGF and on disrupting the editing process, that we will be here again the very next time I try to add a piece of information to any middle east-related article. I think the "handshake agreement" that Durova proposed would be a good longer term solution if both of us can be trusted to stick to it. I realize that Armon does not trust me (though I have shown conclusively that his reasons for that are bogus), and I do not trust him (and I'm sure he believes my reasons are bogus as well). But perhaps the social pressure of a gentleman's agreement might encourage both of us to seek reasonable compromises rather than stubbornly stonewalling every time a conflict comes up. The particular conflict at issue in this CEM is ludicrously minute and insignificant in the grand scheme of things; with almost any other editor, I would have come up with a compromise long ago. (Another problem, as illustrated by Durova's recent slip of the keyboard, is that Armon has a compatriot in his conflicts with me. I did not name Isarig as party to this CEM, and I would not expect him to be dragged into any enforceable resolution, but I do think it would be helpful if the three of us could eventually reach such an agreement or understanding. I'd hate to repeat this long drawn out process with Isarig in the near future.) Finally, since we all seem agreed now that the cites are verifiable and speak to Cole's expertise, can we please restore them to the page forthwith? I think these other CEM issues may take longer to decide, but there is no point in continuing to hold up the edits on the page. csloat 19:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

If you want to bring up Isarig, you should also mention User:Elizmr who left the project due, in no small part, to your behaviour. <<-armon->> 11:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not having a problem with Elizmr, so I didn't bring her up. My "behavior" is not the issue, as you ought to be well aware. csloat 18:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Of course you don't, because you managed to drive her off the project. You did have a problem with her until then. See here, here and here. <<-armon->> 00:20, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I didn't manage to drive anyone off of anything; she left of her own free will and "asked to disappear," probably because she was embarrassed about her own behavior. That she blamed me is par for the course but is hardly relevant here; I certainly never asked her to leave. She asked to disappear; it would be polite to respect that wish rather than using her as a reason to personally attack me instead of participating in the discussion here. I've made concrete and clear suggestions for an agreement between us, and you have simply continued attacking me. This mediation won't work under such circumstances. csloat 07:05, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, online sources are not privileged at Wikipedia. Quite the opposite: Internet sources are somewhat overused and lend themselves to POV balance problems of recentism. The sources Commodore Sloat cited are all well known and most of them would be available at an average university library. If Armon wishes to contest them, the burden rests with Armon.

That said, we get to the challenge of constructing a workable solution not just to that microproblem but to the macroproblem that keeps bogging these two editors in disputes. Right now, to be candid, I don't envision an enforceable solution within the context of this venue. Maybe such a solution exists and we haven't found it yet. If you see yourselves working toward such a solution then I'm glad to work with you. Otherwise you might be better off proceeding to arbitration. To both csloat and Armon, that's your choice and I'll do my best to support either route. Durova^Charge! 21:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I think you've misunderstood me. I've never argued that some sort of primacy to online sources should be given, my problem is with the degree of POV spin I believe sloat tends to put on sources, both online and offline. The problem with the offline sources is that they can't alway be easily checked for this and, as in this case, when he refused to even quote them, it simply draws out the argument for no purpose. The burden is on the editor making the contributions. Even though the cites I gave are online, I quoted the relevant passages which supported my position. We need to keep in mind 2 points, one, if someone presents evidence which contradicts what everyone has in front of them, it's perfectly reasonable to ask for confirmation, it's easy to imagine all sorts of nonsense being put into WP and it staying there until someone physically goes and looks up a fictitious or otherwise inappropriate cite. Secondly, WP is a volunteer exercise where if editors have a case, they should present it, rather than simply demanding others "go to the library". Sloat makes it extremely difficult to work with him.

I don't know what to do about the "macroproblem". I'll have to think about it some more myself. What I suggest we do is to at least get the microproblem out of the way. <<-armon->> 10:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

So if I understand your objection correctly, Armon, what you claim is that Sloat engages in habitual contextomy?

To clarify the distinction I make between microproblems and macroproblems, this grows from my own observations about interpersonal relations. Often when two people continuously lock horns there's an underlying problem that remains unaddressed. I call that underlying dynamic the macroproblem. So people waste time resolving various specific conflicts - microproblems - and the effort leaves them too exhausted and frustrated to identify their macroproblem, much less fix it.

At Wikipedia, arbitration can handle macroproblems with a sledgehammer. Here's one recent case where the Committee did just that: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Mudaliar-Venki123. I doubt such a serious remedy would apply in your case, but I hope it's a forceful reminder of where things can go if you both continue stringing along through new microproblem disputes. Sooner or later some editor will invoke WP:NOT#Not a battleground and initiate an arbitration request that will probably open whether or not either of you want to go there. I'd like to extend you both the courtesy of a more dignified resolution because you're both intelligent and well educated people. You ought to be able to cut this gordian knot yourselves. Durova^Charge! 16:23, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

First of all, Armon's statement of the macroproblem is false. I have never fabricated information, and I object to the implicit personal attack there. (One significant macroproblem with Armon, as I have stated, is that he repeats this character attack every time we interact). There is actually a quite simple solution to this macroproblem, a block or other disciplinary action is reasonable to enforce WP:NPA. Armon keeps attacking me in this manner because he has been able to get away with it, and nobody has bothered to tell him that it is wrong.

Second, Armon says he has no preference for online sources, yet he says "the problem with the offline sources is that they can't alway be easily checked." Obviously this does exhibit a preference, and secondly, it is a false statement. They can be easily checked. Armon has ridiculed my statement that his position is anti-intellectual, but this is what I meant. The claim that only the internet can be "easily checked" is anti-intellectual. Sources such as Newsweek can be found in public and university libraries around the world, and many libraries also subscribe to online databases like Infotrak that their users can access if they are indeed too lazy to leave their chairs. If his "macroproblem" is that offline sources are too difficult to check, I would suggest checking with the libraries near him to see if one of them has such a subscription.

Third, I am perfectly willing to be forthcoming about any source I quote in an article space. His implication that I would make sources up out of whole cloth is an uncalled for personal attack. The only reason I did not give extensive quotes from the sources I cited here is because they are not relevant or necessary for the microproblem under dispute here (obviously they weren't; even Armon's proposed paragraph does not quote them). I don't see any need for arbitration or continued disputes if that is the extent of Armon's macroproblem with me -- I will be agree to be more forthcoming in the future with such quotations even when I don't think they're relevant if Armon agrees to stop personally attacking me, implicitly and explicitly, with the assertion that I would fabricate quotes or "quote-mine." I think such a "handshake agreement" would be effective if this is indeed the problem.

Finally, I should add that a third party - someone who has not participated in these proceedings at all - has suggested another solution. I was wondering if he was acting independently or if his actions are in any way associated with this mediation. csloat 18:20, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

OK as far as the online/offline issue goes, I suppose I do have a preference for online when there is some dispute, not because they are intrinsically better, just that they are practically so. <<-armon->> 00:31, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Except they aren't, as explained above. You also missed the rest of the points I made above; I've offered yet another attempt at a potential solution to the problem, and I look forward to reading your thoughts about it. csloat 02:58, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Section break: "Micro" problem

OK, I suggest the following wording:

Cole was cited by the press several times before he began his blog however, he remained obscure outside his field, and was unable to get his opinion pieces published. This changed after "Informed Comment" attracted the attention of journalists which led to much greater attention in the media. From 2002 onwards, Cole has been an active commentator in the UK and US media on topics related to the Middle East. His focus has primarily been Iraq, Iran and Israel. He has published op-eds on the Mideast at the...

If this is OK with sloat, great. If not, I would like Durova and Jay to suggest some wording in order to see how they would synthesize sloat's evidence with the cites I've given. <<-armon->> 10:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I prefer the earlier wording suggested. There is no reason to censor his expertise, and the comment "he remained relatively obscure outside his field and was unable to get his opinion pieces published" seems to be an unnecessary attempt at defamation. I realize it is based on something Cole wrote; but if you think it is notable let's quote cole directly rather than have Wikipedia state that. Frankly I think a much shorter sentence is better here; below is what Jayjg suggested:

Cole was cited by the press as a Middle East expert in the media as early as 1990. However, his popularity as a source of information was modest prior to 2002, when increased public interest in his weblog led to greater attention from the mainstream media.

I would change the wording a bit; instead of "when increased public interest led to greater attention from the media" I would say "when his weblog attracted the attention of journalists" or something to that effect (Armon's point about causality, as I understand it, has been that his weblog attracted the attention of journalists who cited it and interviewed him, which led to increased public attention to his weblog). I'm open to other suggestions, but I don't find Armon's suggested paragraph acceptable; it appears to be an attempt to shift this claim extensively in a POV manner.

To get back to the macroproblem, this is all too typical of my disputes with him -- he engages the dispute in what appears to be a reasonable manner, and then when we agree to something, he adds a massive POV twist to the change that he makes, a change that he happened to not bring up in the conversation. For an example of that, take a look at this discussion, where Armon suggests "copyediting" a paragraph, and we discuss in what appears to be good faith, and arrive at an agreement. Then he makes the "copyediting" change, but winds up deleting an important claim that he never mentioned during the discussion. I didn't say anything at the time other than to revert his change and make a brief comment in talk, but it appeared to me that the whole copyediting discussion was a cover for this much more significant POV deletion. csloat 18:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Unbelievable. I hope others do look at that exchange. First I complement your edit, then I post the full text I think should be replaced, then I suggest the wording and get agreement, only then do I made the edit. That's when you throw up the objection that we left out Cole's utterly important personal feelings. I'm not sure they were particularly relevant to his analysis of the speech, looks more like a rhetorical flourish to me, but I also didn't bother removing it or even arguing about it.

As for my suggested text, yes, I am attempting to shift the claim -towards what the cites which actually address the issue say. The issue was never about Cole's "expertise" per se, but if changing the first sentence to read Cole was cited by the press as a Middle-East expert several times before he began his blog however, he remained obscure outside his field, and was unable to get his opinion pieces published. makes you happy, then let's do that. That is, unless Durova or Jayg have better ideas. <<-armon->> 00:11, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps your version of what happened is correct, Armon, but that's not how it seemed. The deletion of Cole's comments specifically about the issue at hand (not unrelated "personal feelings" but specific comments in response to Hitchens) was never discussed in your comments in talk; it was as if another agenda entirely was at play. I'm willing to AGF on such exchanges in the future, but I hope you can see where I was coming from -- your deletion of that part of the text came out of the blue, and was never brought up in your so-called "copyediting." You claim you don't think that information is relevant, but come on. Hitchens is calling Cole an apologist for someone and in response Cole points out that he despises the person. That seems pretty relevant to me, and its deletion should have at least been justified with a comment in talk.

As for your shifting the claim, again, I don't support the text you offered - particularly the assertion that Cole "remained obscure" or "was unable to get his pieces published". Again, if you want to cite Cole directly on that claim, I might be ok with it (though it doesn't seem like a notable claim to me), but I'm not ok with Wikipedia making such judgments. Anyway, I offered a compromise text above based on Jayjg's suggestion. csloat 02:58, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Here are the cites. For Cole was cited by the press several times before he began his blog see:

• Melinda Beck, et al., "The Case Against War," Newsweek (29 October 1990) p. 24;
• "The Gulf War," Los Angeles Times (13 February 1991) p. 8;
• Scott Shane, "Muslim world suffers by actions of terrorists," Baltimore Sun (23 August 1998) p. 1A;
• Bill Schiller, "Locals tied to Al Jihad terror network," Toronto Star (21 October 2001) p. A10.

...and for the rest, please see the following:

• The blog of war, Curt Guyette, Metro Times
• Can Blogging Derail Your Career?, The Chronicle Review, The Chronicle of Higher Education
• Dear Diary, Efraim Karsh, The New Republic reprinted here
• An Informed Commentator, Robert Haug, Michigan Today, University of Michigan <<-armon->> 13:22, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

It appears to me that the edits Armon made were not made in bad faith. Though I think the quote was helpful and interesting in the article. As for the statement "he remained obscure", that would be original research without some cite. And, really, it is not enough that someone "thinks" that he is obscure, he must be verifiably obscure otherwise we can only say someone thinks he is obscure. I am not sure how to verify someone's obscurity. The overall problem between the two editors is that they do not have the same pov and they believe that each is pushing a pov-- so they do not have a sense of good faith in the edits of the other. I would not be quick to take this to Arbcom because they may both be right about each pushing a pov. --Blue Tie 01:55, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Good points Blue Tie, and I agree with you on the "obscurity" issue. csloat 02:58, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: "obscure"¶

There was a time not long ago when the opinion pieces Cole submitted to magazines and newspapers would go unpublished. No one had much interest in the insights being offered by this University of Michigan history professor who made study of the Middle East and its religions his specialty. The blog of war, Curt Guyette, Metro Times

Before September 11, 2001, Juan Cole, a history professor at the University of Michigan, enjoyed anonymity outside his professional circle. Dear Diary, Efraim Karsh, The New Republic reprinted here

Juan Cole didn't set out to be a public intellectual. After joining the history department in 1984 as a specialist in Middle Eastern and South Asian history, he focused on what seemed to be obscure topics, the Shiite Islamic denomination, the rise of the Baha'i faith: Egypt's response to colonialism and various other matters that the world at large does not follow on its TV screens. An Informed Commentator, Robert Haug, Michigan Today, University of Michigan. <<-armon->> 02:50, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

If others on the page think such quotes are notable, perhaps we can cite them, but, as blue tie points out, we cannot claim that he is verifiably obscure. csloat 03:06, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Pasted the wrong Metro times paragraph, but I did give it before;

Like the history that he teaches, Juan Cole’s emergence as a 21st century media phenomenon is the product of convergence. Geopolitics and technology and professional pursuits have combined to transform a once-obscure university professor into an analyst hundreds of thousands of people are turning to as an alternative source of information regarding the war in Iraq. The blog of war, Curt Guyette, Metro Times. emphasis mine. Your objection is untenable. <<-armon->> 13:47, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Your assertion is unsubstantiated. csloat 17:44, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

This is a perfect example of the kind of non-responsive, intransigent, and frankly disruptive behaviour I object to. I've just given you 3 cites which substantiate the phrase "he remained obscure outside his field". You'll have to do a lot better than simply pretending the cites don't exist. <<-armon->> 22:03, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry; my reply was completely in kind. Your assertion was "your objection is untenable." If you actually read my objection (as well as Blue Tie's), you would see that your assertion is nonresponsive. I have never pretended your cites don't exist. csloat 23:03, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

What Blue Tie actually said was "As for the statement "he remained obscure", that would be original research without some cite." That's true, so my response was to provide the cites -again. As for verifiability, see WP:V. We verify statements by what's published in RSs, and we have multiple cites which refer to his relative obscurity before his blog, and none which dispute this. I've now made these points numerous times to no avail. The evidence will not go away by simply asserting that it's "irrelevant" or even more ridiculously, "defamation". If you want to prove my point about your non-responsiveness, intransigence, and disruption -feel free to carry on in the same manner. <<-armon->> 01:41, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Unbelievable. Blue Tie is capable of telling you this himself, but what he said was quite clear: "And, really, it is not enough that someone "thinks" that he is obscure, he must be verifiably obscure otherwise we can only say someone thinks he is obscure." I agree with that. And I said I had no objection to using such quotes if they are found notable. As usual, you are not dealing with the issues in this mediation and instead attempting to hijack the discussion for your own purposes. And to once again respond to you in kind, if you want to prove my point about your personal attacks, distortion, intransigence, and disruption -- feel free to carry on in the same manner. csloat 02:40, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

As you've reduced the level of discourse to parroting, I'll just wait for others' comments. <<-armon->> 10:02, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

You are the one who reduced the level of discourse; my parroting was simply an attempt to draw attention to that fact. csloat 17:33, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Armon, it seems that you have been extremely rigorous with regard to citations and have stressed the concepts of Original Research to their limit or perhaps beyond. If that is the standard to which you want the article to operate, the same standards should apply to you as apply to others. In this case, if you want to declare that he was obscure, you need to find a cite that proves he was obscure. Otherwise it is original research (synthesis). You could, however, declare that some people thought he was obscure. Here are the policy quotes supporting this:

"Assert facts, including facts about opinions — but do not assert the opinions themselves."

"Wikipedia is devoted to stating facts in the sense as described above. Where we might want to state an opinion, we convert that opinion into a fact by attributing the opinion to someone. So, rather than asserting, "The Beatles were the greatest band," we can say, "Most Americans believe that the Beatles were the greatest band," which is a fact verifiable by survey results, or "The Beatles had many songs that made the Billboard Hot 100," which is also fact. In the first instance we assert an opinion; in the second and third instances we "convert" that opinion into fact by attributing it to someone. It is important to note this formulation is substantially different from the "some people believe..." formulation popular in political debates. The reference requires an identifiable and objectively quantifiable population or, better still, a name (with the clear implication that the named individual should be a recognized authority)." --Blue Tie 14:01, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Blue, you are confusing Value judgments with facts as established via WP:A. The text I proposed read "he remained obscure outside his field" and there is no difference of "opinion" according to multiple sources. This passes WP:V and we don't need to attribute it to every person who states this. If there was a legitimate "alternative view" (i.e. not a wiki-editor's OR) then there would be cause for doubt. As for a recognized authority, how about Juan Cole?
News is becoming more interactive, which is all to the good. I would say that the most important feature of the blogosphere is the enabling of narrow-casting. Ten years ago who would have believed that an obscure professor of Middle East studies at a midwestern university could generate as many as a million page views a month by talking about Iraqi Shiite politics? Ten years ago I couldn't even have gotten past the gatekeepers and slush piles to get an op-ed piece published. This is certainly some sort of revolution, but it is not a revolution in the production of journalism. It is a revolution in the interpretation, reception, and feedback-looping of journalism. Informed Comment: Wednesday, March 16, 2005 The Blogging Phenomenon <<-armon->> 16:33, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I think an easy way out of this situation is to quote Cole directly. I don't have a problem with that. But it's a separate point completely from the issues in this mediation, which I believe to be settled at this point. Is my suggested paragraph acceptable to Armon or not? csloat 17:33, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

To Armon: Yes, you have a cite that says he remained obscure. That was an opinion -- not a verifiable fact. I happen to believe that he was probably obscure, but it does not matter if we read the requirements on validation and on attribution as tightly as you wanted them read for csloat. It feels as though you are wanting it both ways: tight standards for csloat and loose standards for yourself. If Cole himself believed that he was obscure then we can say "cole considered himself obscure", but unless we have a cite that actually proves he was obscure, all we can say is that he was considered obscure by certain individuals. It was you who originally objected to Csloat's edits on the basis of original research because he only found cites where Cole was cited but did not find any quotes that said "He was previously quoted". Well by a same level of rigor, it is appropriate to say that a cite proving he was obscure is necessary (particularly per WP:BLP) rather than just a cite showing what someone believes to have been true. There is actually a measure of fame or obscurity. It is called the Q score and if you find a Q-score reading for him prior to 2001 that shows him to be low it would be verified. Otherwise it is an opinion. --Blue Tie 19:08, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

To clarify, I've not presented a cite, I've now presented four cites which explicitly note his former "obscurity" -as well as others which do so implicitly. If you feel I'm applying double standards, I assure you I am not. If there is some reason to doubt this statement made by two journalists and two academics, one whom is the subject himself, then I would like to see it. Unless you happen to be Prince William or the like, everyone's default state is "obscure", "unknown", "non-notable", whatever. As far as I know, the company running Q-score is given no greater weight than any other reliable source or array of reliable sources, and I'm unwilling to spend $1500 USD in order to find out. If there were other RSs which stated that he was famous or acclaimed outside his field at a earlier time, then we would have cause to question this state of affairs, and then it would be appropriate to present it as someone's opinion. See WP:UNDUE "NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a verifiable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each." The problem is that there are no other viewpoints on the subject to "weight". <<-armon->> 08:53, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you have presented four cites as did Csloat for his position. Yet those were not enough for you, for reasons that have never been exactly clear but apparently it was because he did not present a cite that explicitly said that he was quoted before 2003. That was a pretty extreme position you took and your assurance that there is no double standard does not assure me. I do NOT happen to doubt that th two journalists and two academics including Cole himself believe that he was obscure. As I have said, I have no problem relating that BELIEF in the article. But their beliefs are not the same as a fact. To move from the belief of a few individuals to a general fact is a synthesis and original research. Frankly, I do not know any way to validate that a person is famous or obscure other than through polls (Q score being one). However, I do know that you can validate that a person is BELIEVED to be obscure or famous. As far as "all significant viewpoints" goes, there may be no other viewpoint, but that does not mean that the one viewpoint does not have to fit the guidelines. If you have a cite that proves he was obscure, then use that. If all you have is cites that prove that some people believe he was obscure, then use them and make it clear that it is a belief. I believe that obscurity is a relative term and that there were almost certainly venues and circles in which Cole was not obscure -- even if you or I never heard of him. It is a value judgment.--Blue Tie 15:26, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Yet those were not enough for you, for reasons that have never been exactly clear but apparently it was because he did not present a cite that explicitly said that he was quoted before 2003. Sorry but this is a straw man. Also, the phrase he remained obscure outside his field means he may have been quite famous within it. <<-armon->> 21:22, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it is a strawman. Maybe not. If it is, it was not intentionally so. And if it is, you have not shown it to be one. Just declaring it to be so, does not make it so. I agree that the phrase "he remained obscure outside his field" might be compatible with "he may have been quote famous within it", but still its original research. Remember, that was the big issue that you started this debate upon. It applies to both editors. --Blue Tie 21:36, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

If you think that the statement "he remained obscure outside his field" is OR, when we have a cite which states Juan Cole, a history professor at the University of Michigan, enjoyed anonymity outside his professional circle. [9], then I don't think you understand the policy. <<-armon->> 22:03, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Let's see. Here are some quotes:

Original research (OR) is a term used in Wikipedia to refer to unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories. The term also applies to any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position.

Wikipedia:No original research (NOR) is one of three content policies. The others are Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (NPOV) and Wikipedia:Verifiability (V). Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in articles. Since the policies complement each other, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should try to familiarize themselves with all three.

The prohibition against original research limits the possibility of an editor presenting his or her own point of view in an article. By reinforcing the importance of including verifiable research produced by others, this policy promotes the inclusion of multiple points of view in an article. Consequently, this policy reinforces our NPOV policy. In many cases, there are multiple established views of any given topic. In such cases, no single position, no matter how well researched, is authoritative.

Assert facts, including facts about opinions — but do not assert the opinions themselves. By "fact" we mean "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute." For example, that a survey produced a certain published result would be a fact. That there is a planet called Mars is a fact. That Plato was a philosopher is a fact. No one seriously disputes any of these things. So we can feel free to assert as many of them as we can.

By value or opinion, on the other hand, we mean "a piece of information about which there is some dispute." There are bound to be borderline cases where we are not sure if we should take a particular dispute seriously; but there are many propositions that very clearly express values or opinions. That stealing is wrong is a value or opinion. That the Beatles were the greatest band in history is a value or opinion. That the United States was wrong to drop the atomic bomb over Hiroshima and Nagasaki is a value or opinion.

Wikipedia is devoted to stating facts in the sense as described above. Where we might want to state an opinion, we convert that opinion into a fact by attributing the opinion to someone. So, rather than asserting, "The Beatles were the greatest band," we can say, "Most Americans believe that the Beatles were the greatest band," which is a fact verifiable by survey results, or "The Beatles had many songs that made the Billboard Hot 100," which is also fact. In the first instance we assert an opinion; in the second and third instances we "convert" that opinion into fact by attributing it to someone. It is important to note this formulation is substantially different from the "some people believe..." formulation popular in political debates. The reference requires an identifiable and objectively quantifiable population or, better still, a name (with the clear implication that the named individual should be a recognized authority).

In presenting an opinion, moreover, it is important to bear in mind that there are disagreements about how opinions are best stated; sometimes, it will be necessary to qualify the description of an opinion or to present several formulations, simply to arrive at a solution that fairly represents all the leading views of the situation.

But it is not enough, to express the Wikipedia non-bias policy, just to say that we should state facts and not opinions. When asserting a fact about an opinion, it is important also to assert facts about competing opinions, and to do so without implying that any one of the opinions is correct. It is also generally important to give the facts about the reasons behind the views, and to make it clear who holds them. It is often best to cite a prominent representative of the view.

To me these things indicate that when you express an opinion, you are required to attribute it to someone. That is what I have been saying all along. You are saying, "No, it is enough that I can cite it". Please note that the above quotes make it clear that just being able to cite it is not enough -- you must attribute the opinion to someone. --Blue Tie 23:13, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

By value or opinion, on the other hand, we mean "a piece of information about which there is some dispute." We rely on RSs to assess the facts, WE do not. Please provide the cite supporting that there IS a dispute. <<-armon->> 23:38, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

The dispute is on this page. But ignore that. Ignore anything I said about OR. Just focus on NPOV. It is sufficient and it trumps OR. It is very clear. You must give assignment to the opinion. Note the example about the Beatles. Is there really a dispute about their popularity? Not reasonably. Yet wikipedia demands that an opinion of them be attributed and not stated as a fact. I do not know how a policy can be made any clearer.--Blue Tie 23:51, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

There's certainly a dispute over whether the Beatles are the best band in the world (value judgment), on the other hand, if you said they were a popular band (fact), there'd be no serious dispute. We settle these issue by appealing to the evidence published in RSs. Absent the evidence I asked for, all we have is your opinion that it is an opinion. <<-armon->> 00:15, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Whether they are the best or merely popular is a matter of relativity. They are both still opinions. The policy is clear. Again, you are demanding an interpretation of the policies that is substantially more lax than what you have been willing to provide to csloat. If you simply want to disagree, there is no need to reply. I understand the following:

1. You believe that Cole was obscure.

2. You believe you have cites that confirm this.

3. You do not believe you are taking a more lax position than you gave to csloat.

4. You do not accept that the policy requires you to give attribution to the opinions that Cole was obscure.

And now, lest you make a mistake about something I want to break a cardinal rule that I have established for myself. I hate adding this information but I am going to do it in an effort to help establish the concern I have for your approach. I am going to give you my personal pov so you may be very clear about where I am coming from. I believe Cole is an idiot. I do not like him or his politics. I consider him a defeatist socialist whiner. I think he is not nearly so smart on things as his promoters and supporters think he is. I believe he is amazingly stupid when it comes to certain things -- amazing because he is supposedly an expert. (I have some experience having lived in the Middle East among the "natives" for extended periods and I too know some things). Furthermore, I have had experiences with csloat and I have found him to be very difficult and pushy. I had to leave an article because of his manner and methods (which appear to have improved by the way). So I am not a "friend" of his. I am telling you all of this because I want you to know that if my personal pov were involved, I would be on "your side" and "against csloat". But I am not. I am not on your side nor am I on csloat's side because I am on the side of wikipedia and neutrality. It is my belief that following wikipedia policies is the very best solution for every editor and contributor and subject. It is the best way to promote harmony on the project. And in my humble view you are pushing the policies around sometimes adhering to them tightly so that you can smash another person's views and then interpreting them liberally so you can have your way. This is simply not a useful way to proceed. I think it undermines your point. Collaboration is better. It would require more good faith and an effort to edit with the other person's perspective in mind. It requires less "dig your feet in" approach and more "how can we agree?" I have only seen the former and none of the latter in your approach to this conflict.

Now that I have broken my rule and given my personal POV, I will not add any more comments here. If you wish to discuss any of this further on my talk page... that will be fine. But I do not think interesting to others nor useful to the process for me to continue to debate you on the matter here.

Finally, I apologize if I have said or done anything to cause bad feelings. That was not my intent. I hope all goes well for everyone. --Blue Tie 01:06, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I see four citations referring to Cole as "obscure". What is the issue? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:13, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

The issue is spelled out above in the exchange between Blue Tie and Armon. We can say that so-and-so says Cole is "obscure"; we cannot say Cole is "obscure," at least according to the strict OR standard that both you and Armon have been advocating here. csloat 02:27, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I've shown that the text I suggested does strictly meet the OR standard. My objection was to OR, or implying what the sources didn't, you wanted his earlier cites and expertise noted. My proposed compromise does both:

Cole was cited by the press as a Middle-East expert several times before he began his blog however, he remained obscure outside his field, and was unable to get his opinion pieces published.

I thought this was finally acceptable to you, because you've just stated "I believe that the microproblem has been solved, but we have yet to include the information in the article." on Durova's talk page. <<-armon->> 04:27, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I thought the microproblem was solved when Blue Tie established that value judgements such as "obscurity" must be attributed rather than stated as fact. As long as we can agree on that, we are headed in the right direction. csloat 06:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

By value or opinion, on the other hand, we mean "a piece of information about which there is some dispute." We settle these issues by appealing to the evidence published in RSs. Absent the evidence I asked for, all we have is your opinion that it is an opinion. Please provide the cite supporting that there IS a dispute. It was a bit unfair to Blue Tie, but you know the subject. I won't discuss this further until you do. Thanks. <<-armon->> 11:13, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Blue Tie established this already above, Armon; there need not be a dispute. If I find a source who says that Cole is an "idiot," and I find no cites that say he is not an idiot, is he factually an idiot? No; we would say that so-and-so wrote he is an idiot. Here we would say that Cole was considered obscure. I don't think it's too much to ask. And you're right, it is unfair to blue tie for you to wait for him to leave the page and then declare victory in a debate that you clearly lost. csloat 16:01, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Present the RS which contradicts Cole's and 3 other RS's assessment of the facts, or drop it. I consider this to be trolling and I will not feed it anymore. Last chance. <<-armon->> 10:00, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

That's not the argument and you know it. If you think Blue Tie was trolling, let him know. I find his point convincing. csloat 20:04, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

You're the one trolling. As Jay pointed out, the macroproblem is exposed. <<-armon->> 00:43, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I've offered my thoughts on the macroproblem; all you're doing is name-calling. Jayjg's ultimatum was unfair, as is yours. csloat 00:55, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Macroproblem

If it isn't already apparent, I'm not replying at the microproblem subthread. This is not accidental. One matter that has to be mentioned candidly at this point is the community sanctions noticeboard deletion discussion. I don't know how it will end - it's turned into one of those odd Wikipedia pile-on discussions where people with little firsthand experience attempt authoritative declarations - and for the most part the community has overlooked my comments about how the proposed deletion would leave the community enforceable mediation process in limbo. For now, everyone here deserves a statement about that from me if you aren't already aware of it. I'll deal with that problem so concentrate your energies on your own issue.

More or less concurrently with that deletion discussion, one editor proposed community sanctions against both of you. I seriously doubt those proposed sanctions would move forward while mediation remains open. That editor also contacted me at my user talk page to discuss the lengthy page protection on the Juan Cole article. I've asked that editor to wait five to seven days for this mediation to move forward. You could both relieve the time pressure on that issue if you made mutual voluntary pledges not to edit that article until this mediation closes.

It saddens me that I need to report these developments, which are potentially counterproductive to your efforts at dispute resolution due to factors beyond my control. None of these challenges are insurmountable. My advice to Commodore Sloat and Armon is to focus on your dispute's macroproblems, seek agreement on some fundamental terms of discussion, and evaluate whatever minimal external remedies could allow you both to continue editing while freeing the article for other editors' participation and establishing reasonable limits on your mutual actions for the times when your disagreements heat up.

Best wishes, and very sincerely. Durova^Charge! 03:30, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks - I have tried to identify the macroproblem and a potential solution above - should I re-copy that here? csloat 05:23, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I see, the micro thread. Durova^Charge! 08:47, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, a handshake solution is certianly the best if you both can come to that. As always, I'd like to see Armon's input also. When I converse with both of you I often agree that you each sound sensible even though you're saying different things. Would you both be willing to start with a pledge not to edit Juan Cole until mediation ends? That would let me unprotect the article and relieve one source of pressure on this mediation. Durova^Charge! 08:53, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. <<-armon->> 13:49, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Sure. csloat 17:42, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

My suggested solutions to the macroproblem still stand; Armon, do you care to comment? csloat 17:35, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Armon quotes the following from me above; it's a bit out of context but it is one of my suggestions: The "macro" question is, how to settle things for future interactions between Armon and I, when it is clear that neither of us trusts the other? I have several times indicated my willingness to come to some sort of handshake agreement here - it may be ok if we don't trust each other if we can rely on the social pressure of the community to keep each other in check. I don't want to second guess Armon's motives every time he makes an edit and I would appreciate it if he didn't second guess mine. As I said above, my biggest problem with him is the incessant personal attacks. If he can agree to stop these, I can agree to stop whatever behavior he finds objectionable, and to be forthcoming when I cite "offline" sources. But so far he has not seemed interested in such an agreement. I'm hoping others here such as yourself can help persuade him to reconsider. I have also noted other aspects of the problem above along with possible solutions. csloat 21:54, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

OK well then can you restate your position here, then remove this (my comment now), and the one I pasted. This page is getting too confusing to wade through. <<-armon->>

I've stated my position several times now. Let's just start with what's above; it is your position that is so far a mystery. csloat 22:11, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

You cast doubt that this was your position, I therefore asked you to clarify and remove the "less good" version. I have already stated that I'm thinking about my position, meanwhile I want to understand yours. <<-armon->> 00:59, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

What is it about the paragraph above you are having trouble understanding? I've stated my position several times; each time, you chose not to respond to the issues and to insult me instead. I've asked a few times what your thoughts are, and instead of responding, you quote my comments, and then you demand that I replace them with additional comments, rather than explaining what you think. Again, this is pretty much symptomatic of the macroproblem I've been having with you all along. csloat 03:06, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Here's part of the problem; Csloat, if asked something, just answer. If Armon wants to know your position, then state it. Period. Don't waste time with the back and forth. Even if you think you've said it before. Even if you don't think it needs to be said. Stop fighting. Just answer questions. There's a convenient spot right after my comment here to state your position. Go for it. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:05, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I did answer; I said let's start with the position above. Armon has yet to answer. Perhaps you meant to make this comment to him rather than me? csloat 02:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

This is the problem; I have no idea what "the position above" means. I was very clear; Don't waste time with the back and forth. Even if you think you've said it before. Even if you don't think it needs to be said. Stop fighting. Just answer questions. There's a convenient spot right after my comment here to state your position. Go for it. If your very next comment doesn't simply state your position it will be proof positive that you simply wish to prolong arguments, and avoid reconciliation. You have a very, very simple choice. If your response is anything else besides a statement of your position, then you will have shown you don't want to solve this problem. Again, it's very, very, simple. It's up to you now. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:41, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

"The position above" means the paragraph that Armon copied and pasted directly above the text you wrote. Look for the line that begins "Armon quotes the following from me above." The paragraph that follows is a statement of my position. And stop wasting everyone's time with bogus claims about my motives. Thanks. csloat 02:51, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah. Very well. You don't want to solve the problem. The "macroproblem" is exposed. Why, then are you wasting everyone's time? Don't bother answering, there's no point. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:54, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Just stay out of this if you have nothing constructive to add. I answered your question very clearly. I don't need bullying or ultimatums from someone who refuses to even acknowledge that I have addressed the issues here and Armon has not. csloat 02:56, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

(outdent)Frankly, I haven't addressed it because I don't honestly know what to do. I'm at my wits end with this guy. I think it's clear that sloat doesn't want the problems solved, he won't accept the text I proposed, won't clarify himself, and is only interested in outside comments which he approves of. It's my objections to this sort of behaviour that he labels "personal attacks". <<-armon->> 04:40, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

The relevant text is above in italics, and you were the one who pasted it, so don't act like I won't let you know what it is. What do you want clarified? I have been very clear throughout this discussion; I think you are simply posturing. csloat 05:22, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I've bold-faced the relevant text just so there's no further confusion. csloat 05:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

More mediation comments

Thanks everyone for your patience while I was away. I've read up on the conversation. Taking on the microproblem first, both Armon and Commodore Sloat have found multiple reliable sources to back up their positions. The way Wikipedia usually resolves that type of discrepancy is to state the matter neutrally. To offer a rough sample, express that sources conflict about how well known Cole was outside of his professional circle before a certain date. Reputable general readership publications did quote him occasionally (add a few references), yet (names and sources) called him relatively obscure until he began blogging.

Now on a macroproblem level, the boundaries of WP:NOR appear to be a persistent sticking point. Dispute resolution isn't likely to resolve that for you in a really durable way because the definition of original research is a community consensus matter, not something for me or the arbitration committee to decide.

What this venue can offer you is a way to contain the damage of your disagreements. That is, you could place yourselves under some form of mutual revert parole. Standard arbitration revert parole would be one revert per week. You could agree to that or craft your own variation to suit your particular needs. Look for a mutually acceptable solution that would contain your own ongoing dispute so it has minimal negative impact on other Wikipedians. That is, page protection on Juan Cole and related articles shouldn't be necessary while you work out your differences. Other people ought to remain free to contribute.

CEM is supposed to be faster and more dignified than full arbitration. This case hasn't been faster but it could remain more dignified. Bear in mind that if this doesn't work out I would recommend arbitration. Although I have no inside information about what would happen there, my guess is that you both would probably receive either standard revert parole or topic banning, more likely the former. You can gauge my experience there from a new user space essay on the subject. Now that we've had nearly a month at this venue it's time to work toward closure. Durova^Charge! 15:56, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

On the microproblem - I agree with your proposed solution and hope Armon does as well. I won't even demand that names and sources be cited in the text; I think it is reasonable to say Cole was "considered obscure" and cite the relevant sources. I've been advocating this compromise but so far the only response from Armon has been insults and ludicrous ultimatums. Hopefully his behavior will improve or we will find ourselves back here or in arbitration soon enough. As for the macroproblem, I don't see the point of revert parole personally since that doesn't seem to be the issue at all here. I think personal attack parole might be more useful. I offered a handshake type of solution above and the only response has been further insults; I think a lengthy block or other disciplinary action might ultimately be necessary to reign in Armon's attacks. But if he can be persuaded to adopt the handshake agreement I have suggested, such action might not be necessary. csloat 22:59, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Personal attack parole or civility parole could be options too. At this point I doubt we can fix your macroproblem directly, but CEM might help keep you both out of arbitration by preventing collateral damage from your disputes. Durova^Charge! 05:45, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm certainly willing to try a voluntary solution, and I've even taken a stab at starting one, but so far I have gotten no constructive response from Armon. I don't wish to belabor his insults and ultimatums above; I'd rather move forward if he is willing to. I'd also like to move ahead and finish off the microproblem; the page has been unprotected and it is certainly far past time to correct the sentence which is at this point still inaccurate and POV. I believe the ball is in Armon's court; can you suggest any way of speeding up the process? csloat 15:24, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I posted the following on Durova's page; hopefully Armon will take this as an opportunity to return to mediation:

Even more troubling -- while Armon refuses to respond to CEM, he has been actively editing, including an extremely tendentious revert on another page in which he and I have been in revert wars in the past. As in his edits that went to CEM, he is deleting sourced and relevant material with cryptic and illogical explanations. I am tempted to restore the material he deleted, but I really don't want to get into another revert war with him. However, I do think this is an important aspect of the macroproblem -- his insistence on deleting sourced and relevant material that he doesn't agree with, often with deceptive or non sequitur reasoning (in this case, his reason for deleting the material is that he says it belongs in a different section. If that is true, why does he not move it to another section instead of deleting it, and initiating a revert war with the editor who added it?) I will reprint this statement on the CEM page so you can respond to it there, as it is relevant to the macroproblem that we need a solution to. csloat 01:01, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

If I don't see a post from Armon in the next couple of days I'll close this mediation. Durova^Charge! 21:02, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

While Armon continues to stall this mediation, his antics on the MEMRI page continue. Since this is community enforceable mediation, what is the enforcement mechanism; is there a penalty for refusing to participate in this way? csloat 19:27, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Input from Isarig

I think the above comment is actually a clear example of your antics, which are part of the macroproblem. You are citing a comment by an editor who is new to the MEMRI page, who is clearly not famialair with months' worth of debate on the Talk page regarding the non-consensus changes that JGui wants to introduce on that page, who is making a demonstarbly false claim that Armon has not discussed his objection son the Talk pge - and using this cite as an example of Armon's "antics"? It is to laugh. Isarig 17:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the only consensus I could find there recently - or at least, clear majority - was to keep Jgui's version and discuss the changes you and Armon wished to make. It's only the bullying of you and armon that prevented that result. In any case, my question was to Durova, not to you, so I'm going to ignore your complete non sequitur about macroproblems. csloat 14:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

This page is titled "Outside comments" - and is for comments by outside parties. if you want to communicate privately with Durova, you my send a private E-mail, but don't expect public comments, which include snide attacks on other editors (eg.: "Armon continues to stall this mediation, his antics on the MEMRI page continue") to be immune from criticism. Your above comments are yet another clear example of your editing style which makes up the macroproblem: You continue to claim there is some consensus for JGui's changes after already conceding on the MEMRI talk page that "consensus" is the wrong word to use, since there is no consenus. Not only is there no consensus, there is not even a majority for those changes, let alone a "clear majority". Not that the majority issue is even relevant - WP is edited through consensus, not majority vote. And the onus is on the person wihsing to introduce massive changes to a pgae to get consensus for it first, not the other way around. Were it not such a serious misrepresentation of the facts, I'd find your claim that it is Armon and I who wish to make changes to a longstanding consensus verison to be hilarious. That, in a nutshell, is the macroproblem - you are a disruptive editor, who flounts policy. Isarig 18:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Sigh. So I stopped taking your bait on the memri page, so now you come here spoiling for a fight? Sorry, I'm still not biting. First, I never said you were not allowed to post here; I simply said that I hadn't asked you the question. I'm going to create a new category for your trolling here so that we keep this conversation separate from the one above. That said, you are of course as welcome to post your comments here as anywhere else, and I am just as welcome to find them inane or irrelevant to the topic at hand. Second, I did not make any snide attack on another editor; I asked a very relevant question of an admin regarding a mediation that I am involved in. Third, as I showed on the memri page, there was a clear majority (at least 5-2 at last count; you can argue 5-3 if you count the drive-by reverts of an editor who did not participate in the discussion) for the version that you and armon kept reverting (without any comment until after you had been pressed for comment several times by several editors). Third, stop insulting me. I did not misrepresent anything and I do not "flount" policy. That's really all the time I have to respond to this sort of nonsense, so I will probably ignore whatever else you have to say on this matter. csloat 19:34, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Yet another example of your disruptive, uncivil editing style, which is the macroproblem. Look above: Editors who disagree with you are, according to you, not just having a dispute with you. They are baiting you, "trolling here", and "spoiling for a fight". While you are merely deciding whether or not to "take the bait". You made a snide attck on another editor, falsely accusing him of continuing his antics on some other page. That you did so in the conext of a question to ad admin is wholly beside the point. If anything, it is yet another example of your uncollegial ediitng style, which renders you incapble of writing even a simple sentnce or asking a question w/o inserting some unwarranted attack. Third, not that it matters as WP is run by consensus, not majority, but at last count there were 4 editors against Jgui's mass changes (myslef, Armon, Tewfik and Humus Sapiens), and 4 who supported it (you, Jgui himself, Wayne, and Hnassif) - and that's generously counting Hnassif as being for the Jgui version, when he actually wrote "I suggest that we improve Jgui's version of the criticism/response section. I personally think it is too long and I think it does contain too many quotes, so when I say improve I'm mainly talking about reducing the amount of text". When you claim that it is me and Armon who are wishing to make changes to the page, you are misrepresenting the facts. Pure and simple. Saying this is what you do is a factual description - it is not insulting you. Isarig 20:26, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to ask you politely yet again to cease your insults. You came here out of the blue to insult me and start a fight with me. I'm not biting. I said nothing "snide" or "false." Your interpretation of the MEMRI dispute is incorrect, but I don't care to correct or debate it -- it's simply not important here. What is important is the macroproblem here, which I have identified and offered potential solutions to. I await Durova's and Armon's comments on those issues. Your misrepresentation of the MEMRI dispute is something we can take up on the MEMRI talk page at another time. csloat 21:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to politely tell you, yet again, that describing your actions in a factual way is not the same as insulting you. I did not come here out of the blue - you and I and Armon have been involved in an on-going dispute for months, and the same CEM you are invloved with here with Armon was offered up to me as well, related to the same issues. The MEMRI dispute was dragged into this debate by you, not me, and I think it is very important here and to the macroproblem, because your behaviour there, and the way you brought it up for sicussion here, by way of a snide attck on an edito is an example of the macroproblem. Isarig 23:17, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes it is quite true that your collaboration with armon on the bullying is a huge part of the macroproblem, but your appearance in this particular conversation was not solicited by armon (at least not in any public manner), and it does not seem to be helpful in any way whatsoever. You have not described my actions in a factual way; you have completely misrepresented everything you have written about. And, again, it's simply not relevant to the discussion on this page, where your comments are completely disruptive (and, to be sure, annoying). csloat 04:16, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I am sure you find negative comments about your disruptive behavior annoying, but that does not make them unhelpful or irrelevant to this discussion. This mediation seeks to resolve the problems you have been responsible for, and we're not going to get there unless we have a clear understanding of what it is that makes your behavior problematic. And you continue to supply examples of that problematic behavior with every post. I have described, and continue to describe your disruptive, uncivil style, in a factual way. If you find that annoying, I suggest you stop behaving that way, which will be a big part of the solution to the macro problem. Isarig 15:13, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

It was armon's disruptive behavior, not mine, that provoked this particular mediation. Your behavior, which has not been at issue here, has been even more execrable. I am happy to discuss your behavioral issues in a separate mediation -- I will even happily start the process for one if you are willing to engage in good faith -- or to transform this mediation into one that discusses these issues more broadly between the three of us. Let me know if you are willing to mediate - otherwise, I'll ask you again to please stop the baseless accusations and insults; they are not helpful. csloat 19:15, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

My comments here are neither baseless nor unhelpful - they relate directly to your unicivil and disruptive editing style which makes up the macroproblem. I have no interest in mediating anything directly with you, as based on the results of this CEM and our previous mediation attempt, it is likely to be a collosal waste of time. Isarig 20:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Isarig, the irony of your posting a half-dozen comments denigrating csloat (and completely unrelated to the issue at hand) to a mediation page while refusing mediation as 'a waste of time' is likely not lost on anyone. If you're going to post here, try to at least be productive, so that YOU aren't wasting everyone's time (as you are now doing). If you feel mediation with csloat is useless, don't post here. The purpose of this page is for the editors involved (Armon and csloat) to try to come to an agreement - a goal which your comments seem intended to undermine. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 21:22, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Please have a look at this, especially the sentence that reads "Other interested parties, please post to the outside comment page.". Then, read the top of this page, which explictly says "This is the comment page. If you are not a named party to this mediation, please post comments, evidence, and suggestions here." Once you have gained a clear understanding of what this page is really all about (hint: it is 100% the opposite of what you wrote in your edit summary), I will be happy to explain tot you the differnce between not wanting to waste my time in formaal mediation with cslot, vs. willing to try and resolve his diruptive behavior through someone else's process. You might alos wish to familiarize yourself with WP:AGF, and strike out your offensive last comment. Isarig 22:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Isarig, if you want to resolve the disruptive behavior of another editor, you cannot continue to engage in it yourself. If you have 'no interest in mediating anything directly' with csloat, just make your point and leave it at that. It's disingenuous and disruptive for you to use this page as a platform to repeat the same characterizations and personal attacks of csloat over and over.

This page is not for disruptive comments, personal attacks, or incessant insults. I feel obliged to remind you that the ostensible point of this page is to make productive comments - not personal attacks like yours (on me now, as well as csloat). By repeating personal attacks that parrot the phrases whatever other editors are saying like this you're NOT providing useful comments, evidence or suggestions - you're editing tendentiously.

In fact, you seem to me to be unwilling to even try to make productive comments, favoring what amounts to little more than one big bullying attempt. And in light of your conscious, unapologetic and relentless bullying, I'll simply close by saying that your recommendation that I should consult WP:AGF is at this point completely laughable. However since I don't take bait, I instead will simply ignore the rest of your insults and attacks and I will ignore the remainder of your thoroughly erroneous post as well. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 22:57, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

This is a common logical fallacy. The wrongs committed by csloat are not lessened by any allegations about my behavior. This is explained quite clearly at Tu quoque - please read, and I'll be happy to explain anything that eludes you. I have no interest in mediating anything directly with csloat, by that does not and should not preclude me from commenting on his behavior here, as multiple other 3rd parties have done on this page. It is hardly disruptive to point out cslot's disruptive editing style which in my opinion is at the very core of the macroproblem. So long as csloat (or you) continue to respond to my arguments with counter-claims, I will respond to them. Isarig 01:19, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I have not made personal attacks nor insults on this page, and I find your suggestions to be both offensive, as well as a clear-cut violation of WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF, and I renew my suggestion that you familiarize yourself with those policies. Isarig 01:19, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

You are of course free to ignore my posts. But should you choose to respond to them by making further false accusations of "bullying" or "trolling", we will likely meet at WP/ANI. I note you have not made a single comment on either the microproblem or the macroproblem, and appear to be here for the sole purpose of cheerleading for csloat. Isarig 01:19, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

(Note: insults ignored). Threats of AN/I reports don't scare me any more than 'happy to explain' bullying. Do what you think would be most productive - I welcome the community's opinion and any opportunity to improve my editing with their feedback. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 01:57, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Unbelievable -- vicious personal attacks, logical fallacies, and blatant threats against a third party for doing exactly what you claim to be doing -- offering an honest factual assessment of the behavior of participants in this discussion. Ryan correctly points out that your rejection of mediation exposes your participation here for what it is -- a crude attempt at bullying and insult. Good day. csloat 01:33, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

This editor, apparently one of your groupies, has not been involved in any of our previous disputes, and has not made a single contribution to this CEM, other than to falsely accuse me of various things, while deliberately and explicitly flouting WP:AGF. He is welcome to ignore my posts if he feels they do not contribute anything, but he should not expect his actions to be immune from criticism, and, if they persist, from me taking them up at ANI. Isarig 01:57, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Far from it. I stand by my actions. I've participated in a lot of articles with csloat, I know his editing and in my judgment when you took it upon yourself to post more than half-a-dozen repetitive, deeply insulting personal attacks aimed full-bore at csloat on this mediation page while refusing mediation yourself, it was time to speak up. I stand by what I've said here. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 01:59, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

You may have edited numerous articles with csloat, but as I wrote, you have not been involved in any of our previous disputes (the ones between Armon, myself and csloat), and have not made a single contribution to this CEM, other than to falsely accuse me of various things. I have not made a personal attack on csloat, and your repetition of this falsehood is not only tiresome, but is in clear violation of numerous WP policies. If you truly seek "any opportunity to improve my editing" input, here's a suggestion: Take WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL seriously, and you will be a better editor for it. Isarig 02:05, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I've done so from the start and I will only reiterate I welcome whatever steps you think will be honestly productive. Now, will you stop repeating your insulting comments about csloat (and now me), and start resolving the dispute you're accusing me of having the good sense to have avoided thus far? Thanks. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 02:07, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

No, you have not done so from the start. In fact, you quite clearly laughed off my suggestion that you assume good faith with regards to my edits and wrote "your recommendation that I should consult WP:AGF is at this point completely laughable". If you are now ready to respect WP:AGF, please proceed to strike your offensive comments, and We can get on to resolving the dispute. If you wish to become involved in this process, feel free to start making some constructive comments on either the micro- or macro-problem. Isarig 02:16, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I stand by what I've said, it's been completely WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL and my five prior posts to this page have been far more productive than your dozen or more insult-laden swipes. Your entire critique of csloat above was a direct sustained vio of AGF, and your conduct here is indeed laughable - all the more so because I don't take personal attacks from bullies (or trolls) seriously.

I do, however, take Wikipedia seriously, so once again, you are welcome to bring whatever remedy you think is most productive and on this mediation I urge you to try (or at least pretend to try) to focus on productive comments rather than more personal attacks and insults.

In any case, time to pack for a looong weekend at the beach - see ya! -- User:RyanFreisling @ 02:21, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

No, it has not been completely WP:AGF, and you have explicitly declared that you are not assuming good faith, right here: "your recommendation that I should consult WP:AGF is at this point completely laughable". To continue and stand by what you've said, when it is so obviously incorrect does not inspire great faith in your ability to make good use of whatever community feedback is offered to you. As to remedies, I have already suggested them above. As far as you are concerned, my recommendation and remedy is that if you are truly assuming good faith, you should go back and strike out the offending remarks you made which violate WP:AGF. As far the the CEM between csloat and Armon, in my opinion, a big part of the macroproblem is csloat's editing style, which is uncivil , and as the examples above show, consists of labeling his interlocutors actions as "trolling", "baiting", "bullying" and "spoiling for a fight", and their edits as "antics". If we are to resolve the dispute, csolat must recognize that this editing style is incompatible with Wikipedia's basic tenets , and he should cease editing that way. I believe this will go a long way toward resolving this, and other, related, disputes. Isarig 03:22, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

If any user is shown to have employed repetitive, intentionally deceptive and inconsistent arguments accompanied with insults, personal attacks, relentless gaming of policy and/or refusals to participate in dispute resolution processes, threats against anyone speaking in opposition to their views, etc., one could argue without bad faith that that user was editing tendentiously - as you probably know, that's a nice way to say trolling. Whether Armon, csloat, Isarig or RyanFreisling, the same guidelines apply. I'm willing to engage the community's feedback on these questions - but in this specific case you brought up the possibility of a report on AN/I so I suggest you write a report if you really think it's productive. And again, I'm heading to the beach (starting early tomorrow morning) so my apologies in advance for any delays in participating in those steps you deem necessary to take.-- User:RyanFreisling @ 03:35, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Closing this case

With thanks to everyone who did their best here, this mediation just hasn't worked out. I'm closing it now and I wish you all well. Durova^Charge! 03:06, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

See also

• Wikipedia:Community enforceable mediation/Commodore Sloat and Armon