Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-11-13 Hwacha popular culture

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikipedia Mediation Cabal

State: Open Mediated By: →Bobby← Comments: Looking into it.

Contents 1 Mediation Case: 2006-11-13 Hwacha popular culture 1.1 Request Information 1.2 Mediator response 1.3 Compromise offers 2 Vote on Whether To Delete Popular Culture Paragraph 3 Concensus vote 3.1 Notes re: second vote 3.2 Votes 4 discussion continued 4.1 Discussion

[edit] Mediation Case: 2006-11-13 Hwacha popular culture

[edit] Request Information

Request made by: Wikimachine 03:53, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Where is the issue taking place?

talk:Hwacha

Who's involved?

OrbitOne, Good friend100, Komdori, HappyApple, Pedant (as HappyApple's voluntary advocate) , Wikimachine

What's going on?

There are some who don't want the "popular culture" section in the article because it sounds unprofessional, extraneous, and inappropriate.

What would you like to change about that?

I would like you to solve this case.

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

No.

[edit] Mediator response

If you are interested in this issue, please visit the mediation subpage at Talk:Hwacha/Mediation. So far, only two users have voiced a position, both opting for deletion of the info. It's hard to mediate without two sides! Orbitone has made a very reasonable proposal below, and I'd like to discuss this on the subpage. →Bobby← 14:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Compromise offers

HappyApple offers that other editors are free and encouraged to correct his grammar. HappyApple is not a native speaker of the English language. HappyApple offers to not engage in an edit war over the issue of whether the section be retained or not, yet still insists that the information is factual, referenced, and relevant to the article, and therefore should not be deleted. As his advocate, I think that "it sounds unprofessional, extraneous, and inappropriate" is a pretty vague charge, and that the tone of the text can be edited by anyone to make it sound more "professional" and to remove "extraneous" information. We do not agree that it is inappropriate, and ask for a better description of why it is inappropriate. User:Pedant 23:23, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I would like to point out, Pedant has seemingly refused to talk about a compromise. ("Again, I'm sorry if I seemed rude. I'll be glad to discuss, constructively and cooperatively, anything at all, as long as it doesn't stray too close to any case I am working on." *) I replied to this asking if we could try to resolve the conflict on his talk page. Not having received a reply, I assume he is refusing to talk with me about the case. Also, when I had an advocate, I made a comprmise offer through my advocate, who seemed to vanish.

As for the English skills of HappyApple, they are not an issue in this case. It is not the grammar or spelling errors that are up for debate, but the content of the popular culture section. I think the guidelines are clear and serve the interest of the article better than the inclusion of a popular culture section. --OrbitOne ^[Talk|Babel] 14:15, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I just don't think it's appropriate to discuss in depth, outside of the ongoing mediation, (see ex parte) anything affecting the case. I think the above compromise offer is appropriate, as the main issue here from HappyApple's side is that the section keeps being removed with nasty comments made about his English abilities. At my advice HappyApple has agreed to stop editing to reinstate the removed section until the issue is resolved. If OrbitOne needs an advocate, or has problems with the one he has chosen ("when I had an advocate, I made a comprmise offer through my advocate, who seemed to vanish") there are other advocates willing to help, at the AMA page. I'd be glad to advocate his position, but I am also advocating HappyApple's position, so doing so would place me in the position of being a de facto mediator... not that I am unwilling to mediate this but it is already in mediations. Also OrbitOne doesn't really seem to want to solve this in any reasonable way. User:Pedant 21:11, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I am willing to accept a highly generic section that does not link to or names any games, but instead names the genre and links to Turn-based_strategy. Since any and all notable games will be listed there, there would be no need to name them on Hwacha.--OrbitOne ^[Talk|Babel] 09:12, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

as I replied to OrbitOne on his talk page

"That doesn't seem to be much of a compromise. It's a slippery slope from there to removing the pop culture sections from all weapons articles, or replacing them with 'weapon X appears in some games' (which is close to no information at all) and from there to removing them entirely. I think that HappyApple's position is that those references are more valuable when they have information than when they are just a vague reference to games in general.

"There is a long-standing and well established practice of including that sort of reference, I won't attempt to list them here as I don't want to make it convenient for them to all be removed, which is really what's at stake. See AK-47 just for instance.

"I think we should let consensus work it's magic on this, rather than setting precedents which could be used to change policies, or as an excuse to remove other information. Cultural influences and cross references are an important part of the reference value of an encyclopedia.

"You wouldn't remove the link from Tek-9 to Drive-by shooting would you?User:Pedant 19:30, 30 November 2006 (UTC)"

see Nuclear weapons in popular culture: popular culture sections can easily expand to become full articles, if there is enough information, and removing information doesn't seem to assist in that process. As for following a guideline of the military history wikiproject, that is a relatively obscure guideline, and not one the average user will be aware of. It is not a policy which means that it does not have consensual support of the wikipedian-community-at-large. Anyone editing any page is very likely to be ignorant of its existence, and therefore likely to insert information contrary to it. If this information is deleted, per guideline and sans policy, we will likely have to discuss this matter ad infinitum when this occurs. Let's settle this once, whether this guideline is a policy, or a mere guideline and whther pop culture has a place in an encyclopedia or not. Who wrote this guideline? When? How many people discussed it?User:Pedant 21:11, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

• This discussion on the project talk page expresses some of the reasons behind the pop culture "guideline". Let me know what you think about the concerns raised there. →Bobby← 21:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

One of the comments in that discussion is this:"Asams10, whilst I appreciate your dedication and enthusiasm, it's not really the done thing to go around arbitrarily deleting chunks of articles without reference to the editors of the article. Put something on the article's talk page and get some discussion going, before wading in with the delete key and a mis-interpreted "consensus". --Commander Zulu 03:08, 21 November 2006 (UTC)" which points to exactly the kind of thing that started this, a summary deletion of the section without discussion and with a rude edit summary:

Here is the initial discussion about consensus, note there is no mention of Wikiproject guidelines.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AHwacha&diff=71186456&oldid=70583143 Here is a suggestion to bring this to an RfC to broaden the discussion, per WP:CR.

Here is a section where HappyApple's English is disparaged. PROFESSIONAL, PLEASE, GAME MANIACS GO AWAY, was one comment, met by HaappyApple with a polite request: "Politeness: I would ask you to please avoid the word "maniac" on this discussion and also "go away" terms. As you can see this is a forum, not a place to impose your own point of view."

And an early post from me regarding 'voting to delete':

"The consensus process does not depend upon a vote, rather it depends upon consent. Wikipedia is not a democracy, neither is it a feudal system where it is appropriate to stake out your territory and defend it... wikipedia is a collaborative effort, and if you have a disagreement with how an article is written, then discussion is necessary, but voting is unnecessary. Any conflict that any editor has is a result of that editor not having engaged in appropriate discussion.

"If your reasons for including or for excluding a piece of text are valid, you will be able to support your position and your edits will be stable. If your edits are not stable you must improve them to the standards we all have consensually agreed upon: facts belong in wikipedia if there is a reference source to support them, and if the information is relevant. Removing information without consensus is not collaboration.

"If it is truly your intent to be a productive part of this project, you must learn how to create a consensus supporting your edits, or create edits that fit the consensus which has been previously reached. If it is not your intent to be a productive part of this project, write a book or do some other form of project which does not require discussion, consensus and collaboration. The wikipedia community insists on cooperation and if you cannot cooperate, you cannot participate. This is a consensus that the community has reached. Pedant 06:24, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

and the following is the vote (3-2 to keep) which was later mischaracterised as consensus to delete:

[edit] Vote on Whether To Delete Popular Culture Paragraph

It is perceived this vote may be invalid. For more information see: Wikipedia is not a democracy.

Support for obvious reasons above. (Wikimachine 13:31, 16 July 2006 (UTC))

Support Not sure if I can trust games to depict hwachas and stuff. Oyo321 15:38, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

• Voted should be used with caution, i believe they can't be randomly claimed.--HappyApple 23:20, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

• Hoho. You believe so? Reread the Wikipedia rules on votes and community consensus. (Wikimachine 04:01, 17 July 2006 (UTC))

Oppose The more information, the better. If someone played a game that involved Hwachas, and wanted to learn more about it, this page should contain as much information on it as possible, including popular culture references, so that person could play other games that involved Hwachas. --Youthinkyouknowsomethinghuh 21:42, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Oppose Just so long as the information is kept at a basic level and doesn't describe the hwacha in the game extensively. People should know how popular hwachas are in games and in Korea.

• If a person wanted to know about hwachas he should go to a game forum or something >youthinkyouknowsomethinghuh. Good friend100 00:10, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Oppose There are numerous game references in wikipedia articles, and articles about games which have references to information that is outside the scope of the game... and as long as it is factual and relevant it belongs. Remember wikipedia is not paper and more information is better than less information. Please let us use cooperative effort and not wikilawyering. A stable edit is a good edit, let us all try to write in a way that will allow us to move beyond these petty squabbles over crumbs, don't remove information, improve on the writing. This is the biggest and best collaboration humans have ever participated in, try to be proud of your ability to work together: rather than trying to argue, try to reach an agreement together. Pedant 06:36, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

and the following is OrbitOne's unorthodox attempt to combine two votes, the first one which was 3-2 to keep and the new one which was also a vote to keep the section, 4-3 in favor of keeping, for a total of 7 to five in favor of keeping the section OrbitOne and Wikimachine are bent on removing.:

[edit] Concensus vote

I think the general concensus is to delete that section, so let us take a second vote and add that onto the previous vote and see what the concensus is. But it is non-binding if it is proven the section is covered by policy one way or another, but this is to make those who oppose the deletion happy. In the previous vote, it was Two for deletion and Three against. OrbitOne ^[Talk|Babel] 07:59, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Notes re: second vote

1. Consensus (a guideline) does not override policy , the policy is that material that is verifiably factual and relevant to the topic is included. The use of consensus is a guideline, see: Wikipedia:Consensus
2. Votes do not determine consensus, see the guideline: vote-counting should never be the key part of the interpretation of a debate (Wp:consensus#Consensus vs. supermajority)
3. In any case, the previous vote was for keeping the material. User:OrbitOne is mischaracterising the consensus as being to delete, and wants to "add this vote to the previos vote", a process which I have never seen used and which is decidedly not supported by policy or guidelines. A vote here for deletion will have no effect on consensus, guidelines and policy, which is clear.
4. Persistent unwarranted deletion of this material will result in an unnecessary drain on the wikipedian community at large through escalation to formal dispute resolution processes, such as WP:RfC, WP:Mediation, and WP:Arbitration, as user HappyApple has already attempted informal resolution as required by policy. User:Pedant 21:12, 26 August 2006 (UTC) (acting as HappyApple's advocate)

Since we are going into wikilawyering, I can play the same game.

1. Consensus (a guideline) does not override policy , thus the concensus reached before hand does not override policy stated in Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Although a concensus is a guide line, if the section is a indiscriminate collection of information, such as games that features this weapon without explaining how this game is signifigant, or a software directory, no matter how it is writen up, policy demands it be deleted despite concensus to keep the section.

you cannot have it both ways: It needs to be deleted because it is incomplete/and/it needs to be cut back. Are you saying it needs to be bigger or are you saying it needs to be smaller? The section isn't what is meant in the policy re directories, go read it and see. User:Pedant 04:22, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

1. The foundation of this test of concensus is a disagreement. Wikimachine, LactoseTI, Haukurth and I feel the section should be cut back or outright deleted. You (Pendant), HappyApple and Good friend100 disagree with this. I agree though, vote counting is not a good solution, but since most comments in opposition have been made in the edit summary when the article is reverted with what I think is a refusal by opposing parties to use the talk page, I see no other solution at this time.
2. A vote for keeping does not have an absolute cutoff date for voting, nor does it have a precedence for any amount of time. I feel the concensus has changed since then. So I have not mischaracterised the previous vote.

How do you figure that representing that a 2-3 vote in favor of keeping is a consensus to delete is not mischaracterising the vote? Answer that in any meaningful way and I will eat a bug.User:Pedant

1. I stated, I am willing to talk about the issue on this talk page, but it requires more than I myself to have a discussion about keeping it or not. Persistent revertions is also a drain on the wikipedia community and if there is to be an expection that I respect HappyApple's opinion, then he must come here onto the talk page and discuss the issue, otherwise his opinion of concensus or relevance, when stated in the edit summary and only in the edit summary, can and will fairly be ignored.

--OrbitOne ^[Talk|Babel] 22:14, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Show me where you tried to discuss this before deleting the section? HappyApple has explained his position to me, and feels he is not being listened to, I am here to represent HappyApple, discussing this with me is like discussing this with HappyApple. If you want an advocate, get one, they are free, and available to anyone who needs one. I agree if what you are saying is that there is no consensus, because there is no consensus. If you want to bring this to an RfC, and are unwilling to discuss this further, you first must find someone willing to certify that you have attempted to resolve this through discussion. Get that and take it to an RfC if you think that's appropriate. I'm not here to tell you what to do. I'm just here to make sure everyone gets a chance to be heard. User:Pedant 04:14, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Votes

1. Delete For stated reasons above. --OrbitOne ^[Talk|Babel] 07:59, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
2. Keep As long as information it is descriptive and accurate it should be included on the article, also inter-article sources complement to each other and they should be "bidirectional" , not "monodirectional" and Why do they appear in so many articles such as Trebuchets, and so on? the wikipedia community have seen this contribution useful and had been there on the articles for long time as concensus. And finally talking about numbers only '4.68%' of the whole article talks about the games, it is less than 5 percent, in a paragraph (four to five lines) which only includes examples where this siege weapon is found.--HappyApple 10:36, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
3. Keep this material as entirely consistent with policy and established wikipedia-wide consensus User:Pedant 21:12, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
4. Delete per recent discussion on village pump, which seems to show a different Wikipedia consensus from the one Pendant in which seems to believe (lest someone start adding lists of games and movies to the Revolver article that do little more than include revolvers in among dozens of other weapons) I would suggest if something really comes out about hwachas rather than a game that includes it among "all weapons" there might be consideration to add it. —LactoseTI^T 02:16, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
5. Delete For stated reasons above. (Wikimachine 02:28, 27 August 2006 (UTC))
6. Keep As long as information is not too long and just brief it is a good addition to this article. Check the Samurai article. It is overloaded on the "Popular Culture" section. It just helps how popular the hwacha is today. Good friend100 02:44, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
7. Keep If people invest effort in adding information on pop culture references to an article, then their contribution should be respected. Wikipedia is not an exclusive club run by intelligentsia Matt 11:37, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] discussion continued

I find your comments rather provoking Pedant. I do not remember saying anything to dismiss HappyApple's english, only the content of the section. I do wish to resolve this issue, but I refuse to take part in turning this into a case about how the other party has acted. I offered up a middle road to this conflict. Lets focus on that, please.--OrbitOne ^[Talk|Babel] 21:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Here is a comment disparaging HappyApple's English, made by Wikimachine. User:Pedant 22:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

I think maybe Wikimachine is trying to create a general policy about "x in popular culture" sections of articles, rather than simply a content dispute at Hwacha... from the months of discussion, his fixation on the section, and his unwillingness to compromise: any text in the section should be removed as unprofessional and gamecruft, rather than attempting to edit the section he just wants it gone. User:Pedant 07:31, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I would like to point out, like Wikimachine has pointed out, Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history has a guideline about popular culture. The popular culture section in the article violates that guideline. --OrbitOne ^[Talk|Babel] 08:37, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that the case is closed, since the popular culture was removed as per Military history project's popular culture guidelines & there was no opposition made. But stay put, just in case there are some late reactions. (Wikimachine 05:40, 21 November 2006 (UTC))

Of course the case isn't closed. Wikimachine has not even explicated what the case is that needs mediation.

HappyApple still maintains that the section that was removed is of value to the article, and that policy (which I believe supersedes guidelines) is that there should be a good reason stated on the discussion page for removal of any factual referenced information, and that an attempt to reach consensus be made.

In my opinion this mediation request by Wikimachine is premature, as is his statement that the matter is closed. It has not been resolved, and since Wikimachine has ceased to discuss this directly, and instead has requested Mediation, in my opinion, acting as an advocate for HappyApple, the mediation should proceed.

The first step, as I see it, is for Wikimachine to tell the tale of why he requested mediation, and what he wants from the mediation process. User:Pedant 23:14, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok. Look, I don't mean any of the offenses that you claim I have committed. I don't know, but some of you write like bots or some programs, so I feel uncomfortable writing this. Anyways, here is what you asked:

• I started the "there shouldn't be popular culture" argument in Hwacha talk page first. When was that? June 2006. Approximately 5 months ago. I don't understand how this request can be "premature". And I notified the public before making the request.
• I left the question of whether or not the case is closed open for Bobby to decide.
• I never ceased to do anything. The arguments are there in the talk page. I see no necessity of making repetitive arguments.
• I want our mediator Bobby to look through the discussion & tell us a 3rd party view of who is right & who is wrong in his or her opinion about the "popular culture" issue.
• I suggested & still suggest that there is no need to continue the mediation because I recently discovered WikiProject Military history's guidelines on popular culture & the popular culture on the Hwacha article does not fit the guidelines. WikiProject Japan is also drawing up a consensus on banning/deleting popular culture & trivia sections too. (Wikimachine 00:15, 22 November 2006 (UTC))

I am also of the opinion that policy and guideline should be followed. Since the article is part of the Military History project, it should be governed by the project's guidelines. Since the guidelines discourage popular culture sections, there is good reason to remove the Hwacha popular culture section. --OrbitOne ^[Talk|Babel] 07:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

By premature I mean that according to Wikipedia:Resolving disputes the issue is to be discussed on the talk page. There was never any substantive discussion, just abuse and deletion.User:Pedant

I would like to point out, one of the reasons I brought up the link exchange issue is because HappyApple said this.
"While i respect your point of view i disagree, in fact, i would be very instructive to a user or reader to find information which is bidirectional instead only monodirectional. References should complement to each other, like Brownian motion and Tyndall effect, and i feel games are part of it. And i dont think that there is two or more wrongs make a right, i see it as a wikicommunity consensus which in fact sees articles open to editors to expand sections rather than minimizing its content or restricting topics.--HappyApple 15:39, 19 August 2006 (UTC)"
Please note, he expressed a desire to have a bidirectional link. My understanding of his desire is to have a link from the game article to the weapon article and vica versa. My argument has been that the weapon is relevant to the game, but the game is not really relevant to the construction, past use or currect historical examples of the weapon.
I also want to point out, Pedant has said I mischaracterized a vote as for deletion. Please take special note, I said the vote was two for delete, three against. That is not a mischaracterization of the vote. Pedant mischaracterized my statements.--OrbitOne ^[Talk|Babel] 22:53, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Why don't we just keep a simple paragraph on the hwacha's appearence in games and leave it at that. There are many articles that have a "popular culture" or "game" section. I don't understand why this discussion has to go on for so long. It would be a lot more helpful improving on other parts of this article, instead of spending so much time on one thing. Good friend100 01:38, 1 December 2006 (UTC)