Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-01-26 Magnetic Monopole NPOV
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| Wikipedia Mediation Cabal | ||||||||||||
|
Contents |
[edit] Mediation Case: 2007-01-26 Magnetic Monopole NPOV
Please observe Wikipedia:Etiquette and Talk Page Etiquette in disputes. If you submit complaints or insults your edits are likely to be removed by the mediator, any other refactoring of the mediation case by anybody but the mediator is likely to be reverted. If you are not satisfied with the mediation procedure please submit your complaints to Mediation Cabal: Coordination Desk.
[edit] Request Information
- Request made by: Lixo2 02:57, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- Where is the issue taking place?
- on Magnetic monopole article, about add a Criticism section (reverted by Yevgeny on 22 January 2007). See details on Talk:Magnetic_monopole#Magnetic_monopole_relevance.3F.
- Who's involved?
- User:Yevgeny Kats, 200.153.155.232 and User:lixo2.
- Pjacobi
- What's going on?
- NPOV fainting.
- What would you like to change about that?
- Add a little and objective Criticism section, very known on Physics community.
- Would you prefer we work discreetly? If so, how can we reach you?
- No (we use lixo2 and IP for discretion), only need add the section... I think if Yevgeny see another people defending NPOV, it is sufficient to Yevgeny not revert the section added (he can colaborate to adapt the section).
[edit] Mediator response
I'll take this case (note: is my first one, so be nice people!). I've got a degree in mathematics and physics, and I've been a teaching assistant in the physics and mathematics departments in past years. So hopefully my experience will be of some use here. I'll look over this and review the evidence over the next couple of days or so. And I'll be contacting relevant parties in the near-ish future. Mathmo Talk 13:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Am going to ask on lixo2's talk page (who is the person who listed this case) if the current state is ok. I'll give them plenty of time to reply (at least a week if not two or even more) before going too much further with this. Mathmo Talk 13:28, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Have heard no response from lixo2, and also the user has not made any edits to wikipedia since before I accepted this case. Long enough has gone by, there appears to be no problem from what I can see. So because nothing more to do with this can be shown to me I shall close this. Mathmo Talk 05:59, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I am back. Lixo2 17:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
I see that 13:46, 25 February 2007 Gareth McCaughan edit was removed the Criticism section. User:Gareth McCaughan is a new person for this case. My sugestion to Gareth McCaughan or other is to rewrite but not delete the Criticism section.
- No activity. Closing for now, reopen if Lixo2 returns. --Ideogram 08:14, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Compromise offers
This section is for listing and discussing compromise offers.
[edit] Discussion
While using the talk page of the article in question to solve a dispute is encouraged to involve a larger audience, feel free to discuss the case below if that is not possible. Other mediators are also encouraged to join in on the discussion as Wikipedia is based on consensus.
Note to self: could nolonger be any problem here. The article currently has a criticism section which covers similar ground to what was reverted. Compare current with reverted. Mathmo Talk 13:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- OPS: section deleted at Revision as of 13:46, 25 February 2007 by Gareth McCaughan ! Please, help!! -- Lixo2 22:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- Please mediators, Wikipedia need your help, the dominant POV at Magnetic monopole is systematically DELETING (rv) colaborations.
User:Mathmo, if you haven't been following events on that page then you might want to take a look; there's a continuing reversion war... Gareth McCaughan 21:22, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] 07:34, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't know the correct protocol here, so I just added myself to the case. And added this section.
I've reverted away the "Criticism" section and even semi-protected as the constant re-insertion of it is nothing but vandalism.
It's not only wrong, but it is original research. No relevant source is given and a rather important would be needed, as the article treatment of monopoles is just standard textbook physics.
Pjacobi 07:34, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
