Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-10-27 Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikipedia Mediation Cabal

Article: MARTA State: Open Requested By: Biomedeng Other Parties: Kokayi, Autiger Mediated By: Stifle (talk • contribs) Comments: Reopened per user request.

Contents 1 Mediation Case: 2006-10-27 Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority 1.1 Request Information 1.2 Mediator response 1.3 Compromise offers 1.4 Discussion

[edit] Mediation Case: 2006-10-27 Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority

[edit] Request Information

Request made by: Biomedeng 02:16, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Where is the issue taking place?

Talk:Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority

Who's involved?

Kokayi, Autiger, and myself

What's going on?

The section under criticism and concern on the MARTA page details a recent allegation of credit card missuse by a former general manager/ceo of the organization. I wrote this section based on a local newspaper article. Kokayi has commented that the information I wrote was not accurate, and has also suggested that the newspaper articles on the matter may be somewhat exaggerated and/or incorrect. He has also stated the the credit card missuse was a very minor issue and does not warrent discussion on the MARTA wikipedia page. Autiger stated that the newspaper, the Atlanta Journal Constitution is a vaild and unbiased source of information.

UPDATE Kokayi has repeatedly deleted references to a Ridestore located at the Lindbergh station, stating that it is too far from the station to be listed. After clarification of the Ridestore location by Amazingracer, Kokayi again deleted all references to this particular ride store, and reiterated that the ridestore is too difficult to find and that we are confusing people by listing the ride store as being near the station. Although Kokayi's edits have been reverted three times (twice by Amazingracer and once by myself) he continues to delete any references to the ridestore. I would like to change my request for mediation to include not only the specific issue of credit card missue, but also the more global issue of Kokayi's edits clashing with the other editors of the MARTA article. I am at a loss for how we can resolve our differences. --Biomedeng 20:14, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Etiquette gives very sound advice as to how to resolve these matters. I've rebutted every aspect of their positions. The Ridestore is simply not located where they imply it is. Nor would the average Wikipiedian find MARTA HQ based on its address. Its street adddress is actually located 2.5 blocks from its physical location. I've already stated this on the talk pages. I included a link to Google maps and still Biomedeng comes here seeking mediation. I do not understand why they desire to publish erroneous data when the facts affirm my positions and but not theirs. If they refuse to listen to reason on the Talk page what do they hope to accomplish via mediation?

Kokayi 22:23, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

What would you like to change about that?

First we need to reach consensus if the credit card misssue actually occured and if we can rely on the local newspaper article. Secondly, the issue of whether or not this matter is important enough to be placed on the wikipedia page should be addressed.

Would you prefer we work discreetly? If so, how can we reach you?

Please work as openly as necessary. I discussed the idea of mediation on the article discussion page and Kokayi was willing to participate.

[edit] Mediator response

Perhaps it's more important to determine if this situation is important/notable enough to be in an article regarding the company, first, and if it is, then determine if it belongs in the article. Alternatively, you could create an article on the president, make sure there is a valid wikilink to his article, then put the information in the article on that person? 207.145.133.34 14:39, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

This is apparently a duplicate of Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-10-30 MARTA RideStores. I am closing that case to consolidate it here. --Ideogram 14:35, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I have accepted this case and would invite concerned parties to post their opinions below at the Discussion section. Remember that everything in Wikipedia should be backed up by citations from reliable sources. Stifle (talk) 13:53, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I am closing this case as it has been inactive for one week. If any users would like me to reopen it, please post a message on my talk page. Stifle (talk) 21:00, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I have reopened the case by request on my talk page. If there are no comments in the next week I will be closing it again. Stifle (talk) 19:20, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Compromise offers

[edit] Discussion

The correct section title is MARTA Finances. I rewrote the section based on new sources to reflect the infomation those sources provided about MARTA finances instead of the actions of two individuals. A previous edit was based entirely on an unverifiable citation which focused only upon Ford and Smart's personal charges to MARTA credit cards. When I inserted ^{[citation needed]} tags. Some editors chose to merely replace the old cite links with the new sources without editing the original content. Kokayi 16:35, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

We can change the title of the section. The purpose of the subsection was to note a recent occurance of inappropriate spending by the MARTA organization's highest employee. The section I wrote was written based on an Atlanta Journal Constitution article. When Kokayi came to the wiki article, the link to the AJC newspaper article had stopped working. Kokayai expressed concern that the section was unverified and I provided him with other links verifying the story. He then expressed concern that the AJC and other newspapers are biased and the story was exaggerated. Now suddenly he re-wrote the section, using one of the articles I provided to him, but has lifted exact phrasing and sentences from the article. I told him this was a possible copyright violation, to which he has stated he did not violate copyright. Biomedeng 13:05, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

You told me? Biomedeng where do you get off "telling" anyone anyting? No one here is your subordinate. I rebutted your position with references supporting mine. Either discuss the matter using netural references supporting your arguments or drop the matter. Merely repeating the same position and duplicating what you think are copyright violation isn't enough. It's merely redundant and as illogical as raising your voice for emphasis when you've clearly been heard. This is why I chosen have not respond on the talk page, because you and your fellow complaitants don't listen. You're all are too busy telling me something.

Kokayi 20:19, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Nearly everything Biomedeng has said here is completely specious. If the purpose of the section was Ford's inappropriate spending, then it should be in separate entry devoted to him. That's why I suggested its removal in the first place over a week ago in the Talk pages

The AJC link was dead long before I checked it. All AJC web articles expire after seven days. So that link has been dead since at least 8/28/2006. This is why I strongly believe AJC is an unreliable source for citations. AJC is also well know locally for it's | biased media coverage Concerning Biomedeng erroneous clams of the use of exact phrasing, copyrights, and summarizing of an article he's exaggerating. The exact phrasing he alludes to are quotations which are properly referenced and cited. Regarding his misunderstanding of what constitutes a copyright violation I directed him to the following Wikipedia entries Plagiarism and Fair_use which support my use of quotations. Biomedeng is wrong about the article I used. I cited three separate sources and authors for the section I rewrote. Unlike the previous edits, much of the MARTA entries which relies heavily on unreliable and gossipy AJC sources I have strove to maintain an appropriate NPOV and balance of an encyclopedia entry.

Unfortunately most of what has been provided previous editors of this entry is cruft. Gleamed from the pages of the anti-MARTA suburban leaning AJC. I have attempted to intelligent and constructively discuss these matters with fellow editors and have been personally attacked by those editors who chose to defend their myopic views. Locally MARTA is a far more complex issue than most of it's previous editors appear to be aware of. As a MARTA researcher most of what I've found here is editorially and factually useless.

Some researchers who study MARTA believe the transit system got as bad as it did deliberately. But most of those people don't fault MARTA. They blame contemptuous attitudes in suburban counties and a disregard among lawmakers for MARTA's woes. The combination of those two things have created a funding shortfall that has been the transit agency's ball and chain for decades. [Creative Loafing 2006-04-16 Cover Story by Michael Wall]

Kokayi 17:05, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Since a comment was raised in the mediator section about determining if the article is noteworthy, I have argued this point on the MARTA discussion page. MARTA is continually accussed by the state for being bloated and inefficient and having poor financial oversight. In years past the organization (particularly the CEO) has been criticized for spending too much on lavish dinners at a time when they are struggling financially. So a situation in which the head of the organization is getting reimbursed for personal expenses (dentist, clothing, golf supplies) is serious, even if it is only a small amount of money compared to the entire MARTA budget. Autiger has also argued that the credit card misssues was worthy of inclusion. Biomedeng 13:05, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

More gossip and cruft.

At the end of MARTA fiscal year, July 2006, MARTA for the first time in nine years returned an $18 million profit! So are these editors attempting to suggest 6 months after Ford left a turn-a-round of such astounding magnitude occurred which completely nullified alleged financial inefficiencies, bloat and the effects of Ford's alleged lavish spending. This suggest to me that when Ford left MARTA, it was doing much better than anyone knew. Plus had he stayed he would have been vindicated. I my opinion these editors have failed in their duties as editors to present an appropriate NPOV and seem be hellbent on libeling Ford and others personally for MARTA past financial problems. As I've explained to my fellow editors the inappropriate use of corporate funds is know as embezzlement. If this is what Ford is being charged with then it's relevant to this entry. But he isn't being charged with that. So they're only parroting a crass innuendo at Ford's expense.

Further more, they omit and obfuscate Ford and MARTA's accomplishment. They depend too heavily upon the Cox's Atlanta news sources (AJC, WSB-TV, WSB-AM, WSB-FM, WBTS-FM, WSRV-FM, and WALR-FM). AJC is Atanta's only daily newspaper. WSB-TV news programs generate the highest local news ratings. Before I informed Biomedeng he was completely unaware of who or what Cox Enterprises was. I don't know if Biomedeng didn't believe or now believes it's relevant but Cox news outlets controls a vast proportion of the media Atlanta. He and others have suggested and appear to believe that the most reliable source for news about MARTA is the AJC. As of 2006-10-22 there were as many as nine dead links referencing AJC articles. Within the past week I've had to completely re-write or re-edit two sections to remove unverifiable AJC references.

Kokayi 17:05, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I asked the mediator to re-open the case since none of these issues were ever really resolved. I am going to re-state my issues. I initially added a section on the CEO credit card missue. This newsstory was covered nationally, and was significant, despite the low dollar amount, because MARTA is frequently cited for fiscal mismanagement by its critics. Kokayi initially claimed my references were unverifiable since the online link to the AJC newspaper expired and also that the story was not noteworthy since the missuse was only for $1000. However it is my understanding that a reference does not have to be online, and I provided Kokayi with the date, title, and page of the newspaper story (as well as other online articles). He then took it upon himself to re-write the section, adding much more detail than before, and lifting direct phrases from another newspaper source. He, AmazingRacer, and myself also got into an editing war regarding the MARTA ridestore at Lindbergh Center. Kokayi said that the store location was not inside of the station and by listing it we were confusing riders. As a result of the heated dispute I took a break from the article until the issue could be mediated. I am looking for the mediator in this case to provide advice on how to proceed. Specifically, should I go ahead and re-write the credit card missuse section so that it is not directly paraphrased from a copyrighted source? Also, can the mediator invite AmazingRacer to this discussion (he was invovled in the other cabal case that you closed)? Biomedeng 21:56, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

No such user. Stifle (talk) 21:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Amazingracer, sorry that I had the capitalization wrong. Biomedeng 21:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)