Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/2008 Archive 3

Article effectively "locked" from editing

It looks like there's been at least a little movement on the ID discussion page, so I'm withdrawing this complaint. Thanks to all those who helped. LuckyLavs (talk) 18:08, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

A credible source cited vs. no sources whatsoever

Content and the flexible process anticipated by Wikipedia's policy guidelines do merge in this dispute. In frustration, I posted the following:

No -- with all due respect: wrong --Tenmei (talk) 03:26, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

• 1. Please see Citation.
• 2. Please see Wikipedia:Citing sources.
• 3. Please see Wikipedia:No original research.
• 4. Please see Wikipedia:Verifiability. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth — that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true.

Too many hours have been invested trying to inspire a meaningful response to a too- simple question:

"In an article with no citation of sources, I wonder how you justify removing the sole sentence which is actually supported by a credible in-line citation?" --Tenmei 07:23, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Action is a kind of answer -- a good development.

"Please note that I've now cited the entire article using the external links and am removing the refimprove tag." -- Nick Dowling 11:14, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

For me, this welcome action should be good enough. It confuses me in a context where it felt like it was necessary to re-invent the wheel -- especially when the prospect that I'll be quite likely forced to repeat the same or similar Sisyphean work over and over again ad nausean and ad infinitim.

Background: Up until a short while ago, Hyūga class helicopter destroyer had one and only one in-line citation and no cited reference sources. The sentence has been twice reverted and it continues under attack. I'm persuaded that the appropriate course is to dig in my heels on what seems to me a matter of fundamental Wikipedia policy. I need to get a better grasp on what I do not understand, and I no longer believe this is possible absent a formal process. This informal mediation is a necessary first step on the path to the clarifying explanations I need.

To restate the issues as I parse have parsed in different word on more than one try to reach common ground: We're mired in a conflict which pits someone with a sentence supported by a cited, competent source trying to push beyond what were, as articulated thus up til a short time ago, naught but the result of "original research" or un-"verifiable" personal opinions -- albeit well-informed, on-topic and understandable opinions.

As a foundation from which to build, it would appear that we need two point cleared up:

• 1. Exterior links are not the scholarly equivalent of in-line citations or reference source citations. .... Yes? No?

User: Nick Dowling asserts: "I'm also not sure why you keep saying that the article is unreferenced given that it includes links to Globalsecurity.org and other reliable websites. Inline citations would be better, but these are an OK minimum. (emphasis added)

• 2. I was trying to express myself in non-confrontational terms when I stated modestly that deleting the sole citation-supported sentence is untenable a priori when no other sources are specifically cited in the article. In the absence of verifiability underlying the analysis, any and all arguments can only be understood as original research .... Yes? No?

Please see Talk:Hyūga class helicopter destroyer#A credible source cited vs. no sources whatsoever

As the end-product of mediation, I'd really appreciate some suggestions about how this could have been handled differently? It seems like this deceptively trivial dispute has been going on for months rather than days. I've already invested more hours than I'd intended; and yet, we've not quite managed to reach a threshold where we identify a legitimate subject about which we have good reasons to disagree.

Adding in-line citations at this point is a very good step in the right direction, but it muddies the issues somewhat. I need to learn from this, and I no longer believe that I can figure it out unassisted. --Tenmei (talk) 04:34, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

As you can see for yourself, I immediately posted a link on the talk page when I tried to seek help from a noticeboard advisor, but that well-intended effort was thwarted. It was converted into naught but a further, unhelpful drain on my reserves of good will.

You've crossposted this to two noticeboards, (here and Wikipedia:No original research/noticeboard), please choose one. You may also want to consider removing the two notices and opening an WP:RFC on the article talk page. -Optigan13 (talk) 05:09, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Well I've responded on the article talk page, so just pull the post from no original research noticeboard, responded to the questions I've asked on the article talk page and wait until the other editors involved can respond to, after that then maybe an RFC. Cross-posting looks a little forum-shopping, and splits up the discussion. -Optigan13 (talk) 06:00, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

My effort to find help "looks a little like forum-shopping"? I wasn't forum shopping then -- far from it; but I'm forum-shopping now. If not this forum, then I'll press on to the whatever-it-is that the Formal Mediation can offer.

As I understand it, Nick Dowling would be inclined to ask you to mediate the following:

Tenmei wants to include text stating that the ship is an aircraft carrier, with a reference back to a PBS website. The diff in question is [1]. Bill has reverted this twice as it's not correct and has been discussed before (see above). I've provided two references to highly reliable sources which state that these ships aren't aircraft carriers (Jane's Fighting Ships a gold standard for ship statistics and classifications). My one paragraph response to Tenmei's offer to discuss this was much shorter and easier to read when I posted it and before Tenmei dissected it... Nick Dowling (talk) 06:10, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

No. Nick Dowling frames a issue which might have been posed by someone else at some other time. His summary is not a fair characterization of the issues at hand or the questions raised. --Tenmei (talk) 06:49, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

For me, that is unacceptable as a starting point.

Can you help us find a way to bridge a metaphorical yawning chasm. Can you help me find my way towards the threshold of something better than I've managed to achieve on my own? --Tenmei (talk) 13:13, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

There seems to have been no apparent attempt to reach a consensus on the talk page: all I see is a refusal from one party to even discuss the issue with a reasoned approach, and this is why an edit war has emerged. The solution seems quite simple to me and certainly doesn't seem like a genuine need for mediation here: a sentence could be included which reads "the Hyūga class helicopter destroyer has variously been described as an aircraft carrier (insert refs), and a destroyer (insert refs)." Forgive my perhaps over-simplistic approach but it seems a fairly obvious compromise. Coldmachine^Talk 13:55, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. I'd posted some longer wording to that effect which attempts to incorporate the competing references on the article's talk page before I found this post from looking at Tenmei's edit history - no notifications were posted. I genuinely don't understand what Tenmei's concern is as they do not agree with my interpretation of it as being a dissagreement over references and have not stated what they think the issue is, and my response to their offer to discuss this was pulled apart and dismissed (diff: [2]). Nick Dowling (talk) 08:53, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Invitation to intervene

Coldmachine -- Please consider revisiting a very difficult controversy at Talk:Hyūga class helicopter destroyer. My single sentence edit to the second paragraph of Hyūga class helicopter destroyer has been reverted several times thus far; and I guess it will probably happen again and again and again. The demonstrably futile defense of that single sentence has relied on the in-line citation which accompanies it, but no rebuttal of the gravamen of this edit has yet been proffered. The talk page defense of that modest edit has been marred by claims that I have been uncivil and that I've engaged in personal attacks. See for yourself how WP:AGF WP:Civil are used as threats, as blunt instruments which are intended to thwart any hope that an exchange of views can lead to a constructive outcome.

Coldmachine -- If you choose to intervene in a more active way than you have already done, I would ask that you bear in mind my view that Wikipedia:Requests for Mediation seems worth trying in a situation which is rather more serious than can be easily grasped without a passing familiarity with Japanese history, modern Japanese constitutional law, and the international naval treaties of the 1920s and 1930s. Maybe you will appreciate the issues in an instant; but I wonder if determining the distinctions between "correct" and "not-quite-correct" might become secondary to the ways in which ordinary Wikipedia policies are illuminated by the exchange of views here?

Coldmachine -- In short, without any effort to give too fine a point to my words: "Who's kidding who?"--Tenmei (talk) 05:01, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Please note that consensus text on the confusion over the ships' classification was developed on the article's talk page, and Tenmei has not responded to repeated requests to explain his opposition to calling the ships anything other than aircraft carriers and did not respond to invitations to participate in drafting the consensus paragraph - which was developed over a week. Nick Dowling (talk) 08:52, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Please note that I responded here, with a call for consensus building which was rejected. I still see no reason why this requires informal, or formal, mediation. Coldmachine^Talk 08:57, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Disruptive or I-don't-know-what?

This edit is precisely the problem which other editors are highlighting in your conduct. From my perspective here, it's looking like you are intentionally being disruptive to prove a point. There's no need for this, as amusing as you may find it to be. Again, I repeat the request which a number of editors have already made - including myself - that you engage with other users on the talk page, and discuss your points succinctly and without resorting to personal attacks or being pointy. Coldmachine^Talk 16:28, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Coldmachine -- What on earth are you so vexed about this time?

Why don't you re-visit this caption with a preconceived notion that it is conciliatory and constructive and well-supported by mindful attention, as demonstrated by the links it contains?

• Systematic error
• framing
• Consensus
• Informal fallacy
• Critical thinking

These links would have seemed to be singularly unsuited to "spin" as being somehow disruptive. I intended no humour. I am certainly not amused by anything which has gone so terribly wrong since I had the temerity to post a single sentence on this page. If you compare the first sentence of this page with the first sentence of every other ship in the JMSDF fleet, it might be easier for you to understand that my first post was modest, focused, precise.

• YOU said I'd used too many words, so I emphasized the otherwise ignored edit history of this article by posting an image near a select sampling of only a few illustrative examples. This non-controversial attempt to communicate succinctly and clearly was ignored when I posted it the first time. Why is that? Can you answer that question? I don't see how this modest edit is not now to be understood as a reasoned and better attempt to point precisely to issues which pre-date my initial edit, and thus to underscore that the problem which attracted my attention arises then -- not now, and certainly not just because of any disruption you seem too prone to perceive.

The caption is not a priori offensive, and if you choose to construe it that way, the problem you see is not of my making:

Talk:Hyūga class helicopter destroyer is like car collision in which both vehicles are traveling at low speeds. As revealed in the edit history, the full range of nuanced, subtle, non-NPOV fundamentals in this talk page "accident" are set in 2007, not in 2008. In this context, re-framing questions in which the scope of "consensus" is limited by factors implicit in the premise is an impoverished logical strategy.

Frankly, your reaction would otherwise seem absurd; but your immediate response surely serves to illustrate something worth pondering further. After sober consideration, perhaps you'll decide to restore what was too rashly deleted? Or at least, you should be able to discern that what I have done does not deserve opprobrium.

The a priori dilemma becomes one of figuring out what to do when "the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is not verifiability" and therefore, so much else becomes irrelevant, academic, pointless. I've encountered this kind of problem in the past, but in the face of implacable blank walls, no headway seemed possible. This time, when I persisted -- rather than reaching a substantive issue, my efforts were thwarted by complaints that I was being disruptive.--Tenmei (talk) 18:05, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Request for mediation at WP:MOSNUM

I have filled in a request for mediation here. I would appreciate it if someone could take a look, because the (mediation) page is getting out of hand. For a summary of the immediate problems, please take a look at the mediation talk page. Thanks. Thunderbird2 (talk) 17:32, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify, the particular problems that I see are:

• User:Fnagaton has added a POV remark to my deliberately neutral description of the dispute;
• User:Headbomb insists on changing the format of the page, moving the creation date of the original request from "mediator notes" (where it had been placed automatically when I created the page) to "request details".

I think it might take an experienced mediator to smooth things out :)Thunderbird2 (talk) 17:42, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Both of the claims above are misrepresentation because 1) It is a fact that Thunderbird2 refused to answer questions, as documented by the mediation request. In effect Thunderbird2 did not mention what he did wrong in the mediation request and as the "What's going on?" section comment says "If you yourself have done something wrong, mention that as well.". My edit corrected that error of omission by Thunderbird2. It is also worth noting that my edit only reports on the evidence that other editors have posted on talk pages regarding the failure of Thunderbird2 to answer questions. 2) It is a fact that Thunderbird2 edited the mediator notes section which has the comment text "MEDIATOR USE ONLY". Fnagaton 09:56, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Is this the right place?

I seem to be in an odd situation that the various dispute settlement systems don't obviously cover. I would have said "3rd opinion" at first glance, but that seems to be aimed at covering two-person disputes. Could someone take a look at the lengthy and often heated exchanges [[Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Good_articles/Project_quality_task_force/Archive_2|here] and here and tell me if this is the right place to turn? Or would 3rd party be appropriate? It's entirely possible that I am completely full of it in terms of the argument, but I don't think asking either the "victim" or the "perpetrators" (assuming either exists) is likely to lead to an outcome that pleases anyone.

Thanks!

Maury (talk) 00:38, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry, I do not think MedCab can help you. --slashem (talk) 19:31, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Meditation Cabal

For a moment I thought it said "meditation cabal." Someone the Person (talk) 00:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipe-tan meditating deeply upon the mysteries of Wikipedia. Aum... :D Vassyana (talk) 19:46, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Request

Perhaps several of you could intervene in this situation. There seem to be problems at the following article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008_Beijing_Drum_Tower_stabbing Two or more administrators are stifling debate. One individual went so far as to rename the article in question, while the name is under discussion.

Another practice in use is one that I am not sure is addressed on Wikipedia. The barraging of a user... Simply overwhelming people with rapid replies on their user talk pages. Then using the fact that the users haven't replied as implying that they have superiority. A third thing in question is how administrators are going to far with the seniority they have earned. That doesn't mean they have more value. Overmoon (talk) 04:21, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Discussion before acceptance

Forgive me if this has been discussed recently, I've been away awhile. Back some time ago, I mentioned the problem with editors talking all over the MedCab case pages before a mediator had shown up. For reference, the discusion was here, the basic result was that most thought there really wasn't a problem. Noticing the state of 2008-07-13_Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers), I still think there is a serious problem. Granted, I've commented at the bottom of the case page that the case isn't really good for mediation, but the problem is that unfettered access to the page by the parties before a mediator shows up and takes the case 1) is antithetical to the idea of mediation and may actually cause mediation to fail, and 2) makes it very difficult for anyone to sort it out when they get there even just to say "sorry, wrong forum guys". Although I don't believe we need to become super formal like MedCom (what would be the point then), I do think we need to create some basic structural formalities and procedures to prevent the problem we are having.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 02:34, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I've added a note to the case page template.[3] Vassyana (talk) 04:34, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Request to review and intervene

Please review "Ruby McCollum" for Wikipedia policies. I believe that it is now appropriately supported by references and that the "tags" listed by objecting parties should be removed since they are no longer accurate.

Thanks,

Art Ellis

Request to review

This case has sprung open again, with an editor deleting content which she doesn't agree with:

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-03-19 Martin Anderson controversy

Ford1206 believes she knows the truth, because she lives in the area, and so refuses to document her edits. It's an old POV dispute. Could you get a look, and advise.Fconaway (talk) 17:40, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Request for resolution

Hi

I have been threatened with a ban by OhanaUnited for what he considers to be inappropriate editing. As he is currently busy with a new job he doesn't have time to conclude our discussion on the matter. I have no problems with real life taking him away from Wiki, however this leaves me in limbo and I don't like having things like this hanging with no idea when its going to get resolved. So I was wondering if someone could pick up where he left off and help conclude the situation. My disputed editing can be found here[[4]].I just want to get things resolved so that I can get back to editing.

Please note - I did once delete things on the talk page for my account because I didn't know/understand archiving at that point and didn't realise that notices counted as discussions. I removed a notice of speedy deletion for an attempt at an article on the Klub Foot and a notice of Orphaned non-free media, both times because I didn't think it would really matter. (Please note that I kept the discussion about my edits on the RuneScape article). Also when warned about removal of these items I asked for advice on what the correct procedure was.

I have tried to get this resolved via The Admin noticeboard but it must have been removed as a dead thread.

Thank you for your timeFlashNerdX (talk) 10:50, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi FlashNerdX, I've commented on your talk page. PhilKnight (talk) 12:30, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#Dates_are_not_linked_unless...

Ok, I admit, I really don't know if issue falls to this group or not. But because of a single ambiguous sentence on Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#Dates,

Dates are not linked unless there is a particular reason to do so.

a discussion over on Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#Dates_are_not_linked_unless... has been spawned, and if I know my WP, it'll end up in some ArbCom or Mediation or another episode of WP:DRAMA. I'm hoping that by raising a flag here, we can head things off at the pass before WP:BOTs run amok making millions of edits which have to be rolled backwards, forwards and sideways. If we had a Bat-Signal, I'd push the button, but instead, I figured I'd start with those who cannot be named. If there is a better group to handle it, please let me know. Thanks. — MrDolomite • Talk 20:44, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Two cases I need taking over

I am sorry but due to personal events I have to leave for a short while. I have relisted the cases "Kenja Communication" and "Diabetes mellitus" on MEDCAB. Can another mediator kindly take over? Thanks! :-) Fr33kman^{talk APW} 01:32, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Request to review

This case has sprung open yet again, soon after page protection was removed. An editor insists on "winning", engaging in edit warring:

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-03-19 Martin Anderson controversy

Ford1206 believes she knows the truth, because she lives in the area, and so refuses to document her edits or allow for any other viewpoints (in a truly multi-faceted controversy). It's an old POV dispute. Could you get a look (yet again), and advise.Fconaway (talk) 20:09, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Case closed on talk page template?

I am a party to the Harvey Milk mediation case. It was closed today. Does a bot close the talk page template, or is there a code to mark it as closed? I think it's worthwhile to keep the template on the talk page to link back to the mediation as part of the article history. --Moni3 (talk) 23:25, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Oops, sorry. That's my job :-p Xavexgoem (talk) 23:32, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

That's a good idea, actually. That template is hella complex, though. I've pinged the person who made it - dunno when they'll be around. Xavexgoem (talk) 23:37, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

 Done, thanks to Hersfold. Xavexgoem (talk) 00:25, 20 September 2008 (UTC)