Content deleted Content added
TransporterMan (talk | contribs) Moving open mediation to talk page |
|||
Line 61: | Line 61: | ||
*'''Accept''' For the Committee, [[User:TransporterMan|<span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS; color:blue; font-variant:small-caps;">'''TransporterMan'''</span>]] ([[User talk:TransporterMan|<font face="Trebuchet MS" size="1">TALK</font>]]) 20:30, 28 November 2014 (UTC) (Chairperson) |
*'''Accept''' For the Committee, [[User:TransporterMan|<span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS; color:blue; font-variant:small-caps;">'''TransporterMan'''</span>]] ([[User talk:TransporterMan|<font face="Trebuchet MS" size="1">TALK</font>]]) 20:30, 28 November 2014 (UTC) (Chairperson) |
||
:I am happy to take this case if the parties are OK with it, but there is a caveat. What I understand the issue to be is that Cwobeel is removing a table which he says is unsourced original research or a unique interpretation of the sources. I understand this to be a general concern as well a specific concern with some content. Specifically, in addition to correctly pointing out the lack of inline references on some data points, he believes that the use of the term "Arab Winter" to describe the concept of "aftermath of Arab Spring" is being synthesized with the other data in the table which does not specifically invoke Arab Winter. The term Arab Winter does not appear in all the sources. The other 3 parties maintain that the content itself can be used in the article Arab Winter, and opinions differ how to show the content. They may try to show that the equivalence between the Arab Spring or events described in the sources and the Arab Winter is demonstrable in multiple reliable sources, and not a unique synthesis, and provide sources for all of the data and statements in the table. The stipulation for taking the case is that the argument that consensus may trump policy be dropped. A simple consensus to involve IAR cannot be used for core policies like V, NOR, NPOV, etc. So long as all the parties additionally accept this stipulation that we must adhere to V, NOR, NPOV, and so on. This means consensus will change if the previous consensus can be shown to violate those policies in some way, i.e. by including something that constitutes a unique synthesis of data. Relevant reading includes [[Wikipedia:These are not original research#Compiling facts and information]], [[Wikipedia:What SYNTH is not#SYNTH is not numerical summarization]] '''[[User:Andrevan|Andrevan]]'''[[User_talk:Andrevan|@]] 07:50, 29 November 2014 (UTC) |
:I am happy to take this case if the parties are OK with it, but there is a caveat. What I understand the issue to be is that Cwobeel is removing a table which he says is unsourced original research or a unique interpretation of the sources. I understand this to be a general concern as well a specific concern with some content. Specifically, in addition to correctly pointing out the lack of inline references on some data points, he believes that the use of the term "Arab Winter" to describe the concept of "aftermath of Arab Spring" is being synthesized with the other data in the table which does not specifically invoke Arab Winter. The term Arab Winter does not appear in all the sources. The other 3 parties maintain that the content itself can be used in the article Arab Winter, and opinions differ how to show the content. They may try to show that the equivalence between the Arab Spring or events described in the sources and the Arab Winter is demonstrable in multiple reliable sources, and not a unique synthesis, and provide sources for all of the data and statements in the table. The stipulation for taking the case is that the argument that consensus may trump policy be dropped. A simple consensus to involve IAR cannot be used for core policies like V, NOR, NPOV, etc. So long as all the parties additionally accept this stipulation that we must adhere to V, NOR, NPOV, and so on. This means consensus will change if the previous consensus can be shown to violate those policies in some way, i.e. by including something that constitutes a unique synthesis of data. Relevant reading includes [[Wikipedia:These are not original research#Compiling facts and information]], [[Wikipedia:What SYNTH is not#SYNTH is not numerical summarization]] '''[[User:Andrevan|Andrevan]]'''[[User_talk:Andrevan|@]] 07:50, 29 November 2014 (UTC) |
||
*'''Assigned.''' To [[User:Mdann52|Mdann52]] as mediator and mediation discussion moved to talk page. Apologies to [[User:Andrevan|Andrevan]] for the conflicting involvement. For the Committee, [[User:TransporterMan|<span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS; color:blue; font-variant:small-caps;">'''TransporterMan'''</span>]] ([[User talk:TransporterMan|<font face="Trebuchet MS" size="1">TALK</font>]]) 21:52, 2 December 2014 (UTC) (Chairperson) |
|||
==== Opening comments ==== |
|||
Hi all, I am Mdann52, and am assigned to help meditate this dispute. To begin, can I reming everyone this is a content-only resolution venue, so please do not start getting off topic and discussing conduct. |
|||
I've read through the above comments, and the prior history, and I would like to thank all those taking part for the nice short, to the point summaries above; It helps me get started here as soon as possible. |
|||
Before we start properly, can all 4 participants ({{ping|Sudopeople|Cwobeel|George Ho|Lentower}} please confirm you are aware of me opening this case, and are still happy to take part? Thanks, --[[User:Mdann52|<span style="color:Green">'''Mdann'''</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Mdann52|<span style="color:Red">'''52'''</span>]]<small>[[User talk:Mdann52|<span style="color:Maroon">''talk to me!''</span>]]</small> 20:08, 29 November 2014 (UTC) |
|||
* Yes. Thank you for taking the case. - [[User:Cwobeel|<span style="color:#339966">Cwobeel</span>]] [[User_talk:Cwobeel|<span style="font-size:80%">(talk)</span>]] 01:15, 30 November 2014 (UTC) |
|||
*Yes, I'm still willing to take part in this case. Thanks for mediating this case, & for your work elsewhere on Wikipedia. As I noted above: I have less time for Wikipedia for the next few months, & am not logging on every day. — [[User:Lentower|Lentower]] ([[User talk:Lentower#top|talk]]) 15:19, 30 November 2014 (UTC) |
|||
* Yes, I'll come by whenever I have interest in this case. I have done things elsewhere while my interest in this waned. I'll make sure [[WP:PRESERVE]] policy is implemented. It's a pleasure to have you as a mediator. --[[User:George Ho|George Ho]] ([[User talk:George Ho|talk]]) 18:58, 30 November 2014 (UTC) |
|||
* Yes. [[User:Sudopeople|<font color="green">sudo</font>]][[User talk:Sudopeople|<font color="red">people</font>]] 19:59, 1 December 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:Right, super. Looking through this, the crux of the argument seems to be over whether Arab Winter is a seperate article from the Arab spring article. I would also note the previous discussion; both on the talk page and the AfD. |
|||
:The main issue here appears to be a possible lack of sourcing for the table. Why don't all parties involved look into any further sourcing? Have any been suggested, or are known to any of the participants. I'd note the existing consensus to retain the material, so it's unlikely the result of this will be to remove all the material in question from the page. --[[User:Mdann52|<span style="color:Green">'''Mdann'''</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Mdann52|<span style="color:Red">'''52'''</span>]]<small>[[User talk:Mdann52|<span style="color:Maroon">''talk to me!''</span>]]</small> 17:08, 2 December 2014 (UTC) |
|||
{{Medcombox/bottom}}<noinclude>[[Category:Mediation Committee current cases|Sample]]</noinclude> |
|||
:: The lack of sources is tangential to the dispute. What is at the core of the dispute has been very well presented by {{u|Andrevan}} in the previous section above. - [[User:Cwobeel|<span style="color:#339966">Cwobeel</span>]] [[User_talk:Cwobeel|<span style="font-size:80%">(talk)</span>]] 18:10, 2 December 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:: Also, if your understanding of the dispute is that consensus trumps core content policies such as NOR, I will have to withdraw from the mediation. - [[User:Cwobeel|<span style="color:#339966">Cwobeel</span>]] [[User_talk:Cwobeel|<span style="font-size:80%">(talk)</span>]] 18:12, 2 December 2014 (UTC) |
Revision as of 21:52, 2 December 2014
Arab Winter
- Editors involved in this dispute
- Sudopeople (talk · contribs) – filing party
- Cwobeel (talk · contribs)
- George Ho (talk · contribs)
- Lentower (talk · contribs)
- Articles affected by this dispute
Arab Winter (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Other attempts at resolving this dispute that you have attempted
- Talk:Arab Winter#Merge to Arab spring
- Talk:Arab Winter#RfC: Is the section "Arenas" original research?
- Talk:Arab Winter#AFD (AfD is at [1])
- Talk:Arab Winter#Arenas section
Issues to be mediated
- Primary issues (added by the filing party)
- The Arab Winter article should be improved in place, instead of deletion or large sections blanked.
- The article has repeatedly been nominated for deletion, merger, and the removal of the largest section has been advocated. The consensus has been formed opposing such edits. Four edits by Cwobeel (talk · contribs) have been attempts to circumvent the consensus and remove significant portions of the article (ranging from 6,000 to 12,000 characters). It is our contention that such edits are detrimental to the article's health and should cease.
- Most of the talk page agrees that the article needs improvement and compromises have been recommended. One of which is to remove the table formatting for a standard narrative format - a first step move that would likely make editing the article much more productive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sudopeople (talk • contribs)
- Additional issues (added by other parties)
- The presentation of the dispute above is not representative of the real issue, which is a violation of Wikipedia content policies. And as we all know, consensus can't trump our core content policies. The issues are related specifically to the "Arenas" section Arab Winter#Arenas, which exhibits the following policy violations:
- It contains unsourced material per WP:V (any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material).
- The material in the section is a WP:NOR violation (To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented).
- Basically, what editors have done in that section is to create a table of events and associate them with the concept of "Arab Winter" while the sources provided do not make that connection whatsoever, a clear violation of WP:NOR. The problem is not the format (narrative or table), but the content. The entire section is based on original research by editors, as the material on the table does not refer to the subject of the article. What editors have done here is to take any and all events following what was called the "Arab spring" and add it here as if these were described by reliable sources as belonging to an "Arab Winter". So, the issue here is one of violation of content policies and not of formatting. Having said that, if there is material attributable to reliable sources that describes an event as being part of an "Arab Winter", I'd agree that it would be best presented in narrative format rather than in a table. Per WP:BURDEN - The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, so despite this, the material is being restored without any attempt to address the content policy violations that I have clearly outlined. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:35, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
- My suggestion is to keep the article in this state [2] and only allow content to be added if and only if is verifiable and directly supported by sources as being related to a purported "Arab Winter". - Cwobeel (talk) 22:42, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
- Cwobeel (talk · contribs) arguments here (also made repeatedly elsewhere) have all been refuted at length on the talk page and at AfD, with a consensus against his arguments. No reason to repeat all that here, unless the Mediator asks us to. — Lentower (talk) 18:54, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
- (a) This is not an AFD discussion. It is mediation, and I have to write down what are my arguments for the mediator to understand the dispute. (b) We are in mediation because we have not managed to come to an agreement, so your point about consensus in moot. Now, relax and let the process unfold. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:37, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
- Consensus can occur without the agreement of all editors involved. Consensus has occurred here without Cwobeel's agreement. How much more good would have been done, if Cwobeel have put all their effort in actually improving this article or others. Also clear, Cwobeel does not agree about these three points.
- I initially started out a discussion about the titling of the topic. However, the issue has extended to content. To be honest, Cwobeel has been deleting content without patience. I had to revert repeatedly because impatient is unconstructive. No one agreed to merge or delete, and no consensus was formed to keep or change the name of the topic. Even so, the article may still have problems as Cwobeel pointed out. Nevertheless, Cwobeel hasn't implemented the WP:PRESERVE policy, which says to preserve and fix, NOT delete. Whatever Cwobeel did may not be a good example of WP:CANTFIX policy. --George Ho (talk) 18:55, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Parties' agreement to mediation
- Agree. sudopeople 21:20, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
- Agree. Note that I have less time for Wikipedia for the next few months, & am not logging on every day. — Lentower (talk) 22:18, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
- Agree - Cwobeel (talk) 22:35, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
- Agree - I am staying out of this for now; I hope we don't have to deal with delete-restore cycle again. Right now, I guess college means more to me than Wikipedia. Nevertheless, I'll still visit Wikipedia whenever I want. --George Ho (talk) 01:56, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Decision of the Mediation Committee
- It looks like we have 4/5 accepted parties. Would one of you like to contact the remaining party -- or remove him/her from the mediation if inactive? Andrevan@ 10:59, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
- @Andrevan: I removed Greyshark09 (talk · contribs) - He voiced his reservations to me since he hasn't been involved in weeks. I wasn't aware 100% of parties had to agree. sudopeople 17:26, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
- Accept For the Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:30, 28 November 2014 (UTC) (Chairperson)
- I am happy to take this case if the parties are OK with it, but there is a caveat. What I understand the issue to be is that Cwobeel is removing a table which he says is unsourced original research or a unique interpretation of the sources. I understand this to be a general concern as well a specific concern with some content. Specifically, in addition to correctly pointing out the lack of inline references on some data points, he believes that the use of the term "Arab Winter" to describe the concept of "aftermath of Arab Spring" is being synthesized with the other data in the table which does not specifically invoke Arab Winter. The term Arab Winter does not appear in all the sources. The other 3 parties maintain that the content itself can be used in the article Arab Winter, and opinions differ how to show the content. They may try to show that the equivalence between the Arab Spring or events described in the sources and the Arab Winter is demonstrable in multiple reliable sources, and not a unique synthesis, and provide sources for all of the data and statements in the table. The stipulation for taking the case is that the argument that consensus may trump policy be dropped. A simple consensus to involve IAR cannot be used for core policies like V, NOR, NPOV, etc. So long as all the parties additionally accept this stipulation that we must adhere to V, NOR, NPOV, and so on. This means consensus will change if the previous consensus can be shown to violate those policies in some way, i.e. by including something that constitutes a unique synthesis of data. Relevant reading includes Wikipedia:These are not original research#Compiling facts and information, Wikipedia:What SYNTH is not#SYNTH is not numerical summarization Andrevan@ 07:50, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
- Assigned. To Mdann52 as mediator and mediation discussion moved to talk page. Apologies to Andrevan for the conflicting involvement. For the Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:52, 2 December 2014 (UTC) (Chairperson)