Talk:Hwacha/Mediation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] General Info

This is the mediation page for resolving the issue of whether or not to include pop culture references in the Hwacha article. Please post any comments regarding said debate below in the appropriate section. A few things to keep in mind:

I look forward to talking with you all and getting this issue resolved quickly and painlessly. →Bobby← 14:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Updates

In this section, I will provide updates regarding the mediation.

  • 14:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC) - Opened mediation subpage.
  • 21:52, 30 November 2006 (UTC) - I'm going to try to move relevant info from the talk page here. Please be patient with the debate for the next day or so. →Bobby←
  • 14:58, 1 December 2006 (UTC) - Just so you all know, I have changed my username for personal reasons. If you click on any of my old signatures, you will be taken to my old pages where a link will point you to my new page. →Bobby←
  • 14:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC) - Per Pedant's request (which can be viewed at the bottom of this page) let's take a break from the article for the duration of this week. Feel free to add comments as you see fit, but don't expect any formal debate until next weekend at the earliest. →Bobby←
  • 15:23, 15 December 2006 (UTC) - It's been a while since anyone has posted here. I will be unavailable starting the middle of next week through the end of the holiday season. Please make a comment in the new section below letting my know how you each currently feel about the issue (ie. has the break changed your mind on anything?), as well as when you will be able to participate in discussion over the coming weeks. →Bobby←

[edit] Holiday Mediation

Please post comments regarding your availability over the holiday season, as well as any changes in your feelings about the issue here.

My compromise offer still stands. I still am of the opinion that the section should be replaced or removed. --OrbitOne [Talk|Babel] 16:39, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Remember, it's already been removed! If replaced, then it would be completely ok to edit it. Flat-out insisting that the section be removed and stay removed does not seem to pass the 'anyone can edit' fundamental principal. Orbit One's 'compromise' is not a compromise, since he insists that he will not budge, etc. ... maybe he would deign to offer a genuine compromise? If no compromise is forthcoming, maybe we need an arbitration, which I would suggest to Happy Apple, if no genuine good faith effort at compromise is forthcoming. (Better if we solve it without arbitration, because with arbitration, neither party has any say in what the outcome is.) Has Orbit One consulted any third party for a second opinion in the first place? As for holidays, I think there are pretty much holidays all year long. Haven't heard from Happy Apple in a while, and it would be nice to hear from him. I'm available though. User:Pedant 07:17, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me Pedant, but you refused my compromise before I said I wouldn't go any further than that. It is a compromise from completely removing a pop-cult section. If Happy Apple must have a pop-cult section, then the offer I had brung to the table is acceptable to me. I had thought it would be acceptable to HappleApple. If not, then why do you not bring an offer to the table that you think would be acceptable to me? --OrbitOne [Talk|Babel] 09:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

You said you wouldn't budge from "no mention of specific games, link only to 'turn-based strategy' article. That's ridiculous, and not a compromise: 1)the whole paragraph has already been completely removed, and not replaced with your compromise paragraph 2)Hwacha has nothing to do with 'turn-based strategy', why would anyone interested in Hwacha want to read the turn-based strategy article 3)removing the links to the games Hwacha exists in removes any semblance of information whatsoever 4)'I will not budge' is not acceptable as part of the terms of an offer of compromise, it means you are unwilling to compromise. 5) a compromise has already been offered that is within the spirit of wikipedia editing: that happy apple will not object to editing of the paragraph but only to outright removal 6) you have made it clear you intend this change to propagate throughout wikipedia, to remove al references to 'weapon x in pop culture' and that is not acceptable either, without a wikipedia-wide consensus.

Since you have made it clear that you will not offer a compromise other than your 'I will not budge compromise' I think mediation has failed and it is time for the next step. This needs to be put before the wikipedia as a whole in an RfC or before an arbitrator, it is wasting the mediator's time to mediate a discussion that is firmly at an impasse because of your unwillingness to budge from your position. User:Pedant 03:08, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

But that also makes it clear you refuse to compromise as well, with the demand that the game names and links stay, which is the whole issue at hand. I would have the whole section removed, but atleast linking to the genre's article is in the middle ground.
If you insist on turning this into a debate about how the other party has acted, then I agree, it should go to an arbitrator, because such a debate can only turn into a personal attack.
--OrbitOne [Talk|Babel] 21:53, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Not at all. The Genre "Turn-based strategy" has nothing whatsoever to do with Hwacha, and the genre doesn't include all the games involved, some are "real-time strategy" games, right? But that's really irrelevant. This isn't about 'how another party has acted' it's about the offer of compromise being NOT an offer of compromise. HappyApple has offered a compromise, which continually gets ignored. The compromise offered (remember this is a compromise to stop the edit war over removing the whole paragraph and reinstating it) was to allow the paragraph to be edited to remove what was objectionable, and as well to correct the flawed grammar... entirely consistent with wikipedia custom and policy. Further, the paragraph has been removed, and not replaced, HappyApple has unilaterally ceased fire in the ongoing edit war. That is also a compromise and shows good faith. The "I will not budge compromise of 2006" will surely go down in history as one of the great examples of demonstrating bad faith, and unwillingness to compromise. User:Pedant 23:20, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Several points I will bring up right away. You have brought up behavior several times, even in the edit made above. The compromise I offered is flexible, in that the genres listed can be changed, added to. But you made it clear to me, shortly after I first made the offer that you were absolutely not interested in this compromise. Listing the names of the games, linking to them in the article, is not a compromise either, since it is exactly that which I and other object to. I am offering a compromise where the genre(s) are named instead of the game titles. If those games are notable, then they can be noted on the genre's article. --OrbitOne [Talk|Babel] 10:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Issue at Hand

As far as I can tell from the debate on the talk page, the big issue is whether or not to include references to pop culture (specifically video games that depict hwachas) within the article. Please help me refine this understanding below. Again, please be brief with your comments or I might shorten them. →Bobby←

The conflict started out as (for me) the deletion of a crufty section, which I suspected was a cheap way to get advertisement for a game. Links to a game's wiki page will boost the page's google pagerank rating. Free advert for the publisher. However, Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history covers pop culture section with a guideline. The guideline discourages pop culture sections. It also supports the deletion of such sections. --OrbitOne [Talk|Babel] 20:14, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
I firmly believe that this issue did not stem from any such suspicion of anyone trying to improve pageranks through linking. That is merely an excuse used to lend weight to OrbitOne's position. The use of the word "crufty" betrays OrbitOne's actual intent, and stance. This is mere anti-gamer bigotry. A perusal of the original comments at Talk:Hwacha should confirm this to the discerning eye.

This type of 'weapon X in pop culture' section is ubiquitous within wikipedia, not just for weapons. There are even articles which are devoted entirely to 'weapon X in pop culture', this shows a general consensus for inclusion which is supported again by two votes on the Talk:Hwacha page which were both votes in support of retention of the section. The ubiquity of these sections shows a wikipedia-wide consensus for retention, such consensus (consensus is a core policy) overrides the guidelines (guidelines are not policy) made by a small subset of users (Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history cannot have more weight than the entire community) who wish to make an exception in the case of historical weapons. Further, the multiple votes against deletion, made at Talk:Hwacha, show an additional local (albeit mild) consensus-to-retain-the-section, which affects the article, Hwacha. User:Pedant 22:46, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, yes, it did stem from my suspicion of a marketer using Wikipedia. I regularly go througgh wikipedia deleting off topic irrelevant links to game articles. I leave behind the relevant and notable ones though. But I wish to draw your attention to another article.
War elephants (Revision as of 21:06, December 1, 2006). See that list? Now look at Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/War_elephant. The article's FA status was removed for several reasons, but I will mention one: because it was 'listy'. This is an example of how trivia and lists can harm an articles quality. It is hardly an extensive list, but still is a negitive quality of that article.
I direct your attention to another article. Nelson Mandela has what a trivia/pop cult section should be. Almost EVERYTHING has a direct influence on him, from him or his partaking.
--OrbitOne [Talk|Babel] 23:06, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Interested Parties

In this section, please leave your name and a brief summary (anything more than one sentence long will be paraphrased) stating your position on the Hwacha debate.

  • →Bobby← - Mediator.
  • --OrbitOne [Talk|Babel] - For deletion of pop culture section.
  • Wikimachine Delete as per WikiProject Military history's guideline.
  • User:Pedant as User:HappyApple's advocate: retain the section, per Wikipedia general consensus, allowing all users to edit it as per normal wikipedia procedures. Warn users as required, to adhere to WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA, as HappyApple was treated boorishly. Require wholesale deletions to be discussed on talk pages per policy.

[edit] Statements by those Involved

I've copied party statements from the article's talk page below. If you feel as if your position has changed since making the statements, please feel free to change them or ammend them. This area is not for debating. →Bobby←

[edit] OrbitOne

Lets take this issue one by one.
  1. It was argued that such sections are common and this valid. I and other editors disagree. This is can be seen on the VillagePump where I proposed the deletion of such sections as policy. I will also point out, although it may be common to have such a section, the work of a few users can make such a section common, the inclusions of such sections need not have been with concensus.
  2. Several essays support the deletion of Fancruft, irrelevant sections and policy demands the deletion of directories or information added with out discrimination. Essays, although not policies, are a guide to understanding the intent of policy on Wikipedia. Essays therefor are the proper understandings of policies of Wikipedia.
  3. The section is poorly writen. The games mentioned are without context. There is no mention as to why it is notable or interesting beyond that the weapon is featured in one form or another.
  4. Policies call for the deletion of software directories. The section is a list of games with little or no context. The section can be rewritten without loss of context so it is a classic software directory. Because it can be rewritten into a software directory without loss of context or content, it already is a software directory, even if poorly written.
  5. There have been no solid arguments or explinations as to why games are relevant.

--OrbitOne [Talk|[[

[edit] HappyApple:

I think this dispute it is likely to will move forward to an advanced level of dispute resolution process. I tried in all ways and terms to solve this apparent dispute in an informal way contacting an advocate who can represent me in presenting my arguments but it seems OrbitOne's insistence would force this dispute move to a formal level, and i think it is quite baseless because he had mischaracterizatied Wikipedia policies.

  1. In my point of view, and the years i have edited so far on Wikipedia, i have never seen such flames or disputes regarding popular culture or games, in fact they seem to be widely tolerated by wikipedia community.
  2. OrbitOne has used this words : "Since we are going into wikilawyering, I can play the same game."
  • First of all we are not playing a game, we are discussing if Popular culture and the games included on the section it should be keep or delete. In my opinion there are many articles, such as Trebuchet, Piltdown man, Turtle ship, and even Dromon (which was recently deleted by OrbitOne) and so on which featured a popular culture trivia created by editors which maybe in some cases were not experienced ones, but they indeed felt the inclusion of such information was valuable to the article because showed readers how this or that weapon or article was related to another one.

Although readers would focus their attention on how the weapon was designed and how it was used, this doesn't mean that games or popular culture wouldn't gather their attention too.

In fact if we see documentaries on television from National Geographic and even the A&E's famous Biography, we can see that after all the professionalism there is a popular culture reference near the end of the program. Back to Wikilawyering, i think OrbitOne is not figuring Wikilawyering it is not a good thing, and i quote: "Utilization of the word "Wikilawyering" typically has negative connotations, much like the term "meatpuppet"; those utilizing the term should take care that it can be backed up and isn't frivolous." and for this i believe OrbitOne isn't taking this dispute seriously. I am in favor to get to an accord instead going into a tedious process of dispute resolution. And i want to quote Pedant's words. We are working together, Wikipedia it is about team work, not a feudal system. I appeal to editors being tolerant, finally i want to quote Matt words which i feel are very important on this issue, "Deleting content that other people have worked on does not encourage anyone to contribute to Wikipedia. Do not let your personal prejudices / intellectual snobbery persuade you that many other members' contributions are worthless." HappyApple 18:10, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pedant

User:HappyApple is not a native speaker of the English language and has requested an advocate's assistance so that the user may be clearly understood. User:HappyApple believes that established policy supports inclusion of the text in question, in part because of the following points:

  1. The general consensus of the entire wikipedia is that information which is factual and relevant and verifiable is included, not excluded.
  2. User OrbitOne is misrepresenting 'general consensus' regarding inclusion of games being non-notable. General consensus cannot be determined by discussion on one single article, it is determined by the overall consensus wikipedia-wide. The links in question are to other existing wikipedia articles. If the games in question were not notable, there would not be wikipedia articles on them. This shows that there is a general consensus that the topics are notable. Otherwise the articles would be deleted. Discussion of notability should take place on the articles themselves.
  3. User OrbitOne is misrepresenting the policy "Wikipedia is not a link exchange", which has no bearing on the inclusion or non-inclusion of internal links.
  4. User OrbitOne mischaracterizes the removed material as:
    1. A link exchange, see the applicable policy here which states in part: "There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to an article".
    2. A list, which it demonstrably is not, the material was in paragraph form. Unless the paragraph is kept, it cannot be expanded by other editors.
    3. A directory of games, which again it demonstrably is not, on the contrary it is a mention of related articles, showing the title subject with respect to popular culture, a very common and accepted wikipedia practice, see: Trebuchet for an example of an article on weaponry with links to other articles about game, See the policy on directories here which contains the relevant text: "(Wikipedia is NOT) Directories, directory entries, TV/Radio Guide or a resource for conducting business. For example, an article on a radio station generally shouldn't list upcoming events, current promotions, phone numbers, schedules etc. (although mention of major events or promotions may be acceptable). Furthermore, the Talk pages associated with an article are for talking about the article, not for conducting the business of the topic of the article." This policy has nothing to do with the text in question. User:Pedant 20:31, 26 August 2006 (UTC) (acting as User:HappyApple's advocate)

It was argued that such sections are common and this valid. I and other editors disagree. This is can be seen on the VillagePump where I proposed the deletion of such sections as policy. quote from OrbitOne

The above quote refers to a discussion in which the preponderance of edits were made by OrbitOne, after the dispute had started and the discussion did not generate any consensus whatsoever. User:Pedant 22:56, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikimachine

I propose deletion of the page for following reasons.

  • Focus: The October 24 2006 study by The Guardian magazine [1] identified one of the three major problems within Wikipedia as being wrong focus. Articles tend to focus more on trivial issues than on important matters. I don't understand why there should be an informative popular culture & game section.
  • Double bind: Either the section is too brief that it should not be inserted in the article or the section is too much on a trivial issue that it would hurt focus and education.
  • Education: The purpose of Wikipedia is to serve as an encyclopedia, an educational entity or product. Losing focus loses education because humans can read and learn so much that sections about games and movies in military/historical articles would waste time that would have been spent on reading other articles.
  • Manner of writing: An article should not expand too much into every single trivial matters because it's just impossible to write a good article or essay under mutually inclusive efforts. Such type of articles will never become featured or good articles, and one key principle of Wikipedia is constant improvement. It destroys one of the principles of Wikipedia.
  • Principles of Wikipedia: They might argue that the cornerstone of Wikipedia is the "that anybody can edit". Articles are not restricted to only those that would be found in encyclopedias. But this itself isn't even a policy, but, a guideline, always open to change. More importantly, the reason for this guideline was set under consensus only to prevent administrative control that would inhibit cooperative and democratic atmosphere of the current Wikipedia, only to prevent the control of the system by the academic elite. But as long as the deletion of the popular culture section is reasonably non-topical to the article Hwacha, it should be voted on.
  • Reasonability: The guidelines and policies of Wikipedia were established to improve the encyclopedia and maintain its orderly survival. As long as the deletion of the "popular culture" is reasonably better than the keeping of the section, then principles of Wikipedia can be overriden.
  • Double bind 2: Either the infos about popular culture for Hwacha are so developed that they can create another article for it, or the article is deleted upon creation because it does not suit as an encyclopedia entry in its small forms.

(Wikimachine 00:44, 1 December 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Breaking Down The Issues: Main Discussion

In this section, we'll talk about each of the nuances assosiated with the debate. Please feel free to add more if I haven't included any. →Bobby← 22:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Are the WikiProject Military History Guidelines Applicable?

I don't think they can be applicable to anyone but members of the wikiproject. If they were, they would be wikipedia policies and not wikiproject guidelines. The scope of the project is whatever the project decides it is, but the scope of wikipedia policies is the entire wikipedia and supercede any conflicting guidelines arbitrarily established by a small subset of the wikipedia. Such guidelines are not exposed to community-wide consensus, which is why they are not policies, but only guidelines. A guideline is not a policy. Any given user is unlikely to be aware of the guideline and will edit the article without regard to the guideline, understandably, and popular culture sections have been a part of wikipedia since the beginning of wikipedia. Further, it is my belief that this is a new guideline which has been created since the start of this dispute. It would be of interest to note who proposed the guideline and how many editors were involved in the consensus discussion. The discussion on the village pump was primarily dominated by disputants in this case, and no consensus was arrived at there. Any wikiproject can arbitrarily decide if any article is within its scope, however wikiprojects still have no authority to contradict wikipedian policy.User:Pedant 23:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

The guideline was created on October 2nd, 2006 [2]. (Wikimachine 00:26, 1 December 2006 (UTC))

Hwacha (article) is part of the project. Thus the guidelines apply to the article.--OrbitOne [Talk|Babel] 23:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Question - Can you point me to a location where the guideline regarding pop culture was discussed? I can find some conversations that appear to relate to the issue at hand, but I can't find the actual page where the guideline was passed. Thanks, →Bobby← 14:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Clarify - I'm referring specifically to the talk page entry related to the edit summary in Wikimachine's above difference. →Bobby← 14:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
      • The above guideline was only discussed by 9 editors, did not receive unanimous support, and any guideline established by 9 editors cannot override the general consensus of the community. (the cultural section of AK-47 has been edited 27 times out of the most recent 500 edits to the article///Nuclear weapons in popular culture has existed almost 3 years, and is actively contributed to///there are over 42 thousand articles about popular culture on wikipedia) Whether the 9 editors who established this guideline after the dispute began like it or not, the general consensus is that 'weapon x in popular culture' sections are valuable wikipedia content. If they wish to establish a new policy, it should be exposed to review, debate and consent of a greater number of editors than 9. Until then, it clearly is not an official policy, but the mere wish of some of the 9 editors who established the guideline. We do not let the POKEMON project establish consensus for the entire community, even though it is vastly larger than the Military History project. New policies must undergo the consensus process, consensus is a core value of the project, "Guidelines are not set in stone"[3] "A policy is similar to a guideline, only more official and less likely to have exceptions." Consensus can change, but in order to do so it must go through the consensus process, and to affect the entire community, the consensus needs overall community support, not a quick discussion by a coven of 9. User:Pedant 23:33, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

However, the guideline should have influence on articles which are part of the project.
--OrbitOne [Talk|Babel] 23:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Relevance

There have been no arguments or explanations as to why games are relevant or notable for Hwacha (weapon).
--OrbitOne [Talk|Babel] 23:20, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Nor has there been arguments as to why they are irrelevant. Throughout most of the world, there is no place to see a Hwacha, except in games and literature. They no longer exist outside of museums. To see Hwachin (is that correct?) in action one must see simulations such as exist in games or perhaps movies. The test for information's inclusion in the wikipedia is whether it is factual, neutral, and referenced. The facts in the section in question are factual, neutral, and referenced. Their relevance is that they are about the present-day influences of Hwacha/Hwachin (which is the subject of the article), they have made it into games x,y, and z . Turn-based strategy is less relevant, as not all Turn-based strategy has anything to do with the subject, Hwacha. To remove mention of the games, but retain a link to Turn-based strategy is to dilute the value of the cross-reference. Cross-references are fundamental to encyclopediae. User:Pedant 23:44, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with a number of points in your argument.

  1. The absence of arguments as to why they are relevant is an argument for why it is relevant.
  2. The argument that games are the only place one can find a Hwacha in action is false. What you see in a games is not an acurate description of function, range, speed of projectile or effectiveness. It is a ranged unit which is weaker than a tank. As for seeing a Hwacha, Wikipedia has a couple of nice pictures that are historically acurate. Google has more I am sure.
  3. Except there is a policy against indiscriminate information.
  4. Except the games do not present a historically acurate representation of a Hwacha.
  5. Except it is factual, neutral and referenced that certain turn base games feature a weapon that looks like a Hwacha.
    --OrbitOne [Talk|Babel] 23:58, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FanCruft

Several essays support the deletion of Fancruft, irrelevant sections and policy demands the deletion added with out discrimination. Essays, although not policies, are a guide to understanding the intent of policy on Wikipedia. Essays therefor are the proper understandings of policies of Wikipedia.
--OrbitOne [Talk|Babel] 23:24, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

The exact policy I am referencing is Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information.
The essay Fancruft is an interpretation of that policy covering fancruft. Wikipedia:Importance is also brought into play; there are no realiable sources of information detailing how those games have affected the perception of Hwachas or relate to Hwacha in any way other than the weapon is featured in those games. Although Fancruft is an essay and Wikipedia:Importance is a guideline, they explain the intention of Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information.
I believe the popculture section is indiscriminate information.
--OrbitOne [Talk|Babel] 00:37, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

To further my point, please look at Nelson_Mandela#Trivia. That is was a trvia/pop culture section should look like. Although there are a couple of points I cringe at, almost all of them have something to do with the man directly.
--OrbitOne [Talk|Babel] 21:11, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

The policy OrbitOne "references" does not mention anything that applies to this issue, read the policy yourself and see. The essay (essays are not policy) on Fancruft states in part "... "fancruft" ... implies that the content is unimportant and the contributor's judgement of notability is lacking". Calling a user's contributions by the word fancruft is a violation of WP:CIVIL and a lack of civility and a willingness to discuss the text on its merits is a core part of the problem. Further, it states "It is true that things labeled fancruft are often deleted from Wikipedia. This is primarily due to the fact that things labeled as fancruft are often poorly written, unreferenced, unwikified, and non-neutral -- all valid reasons for deletion." but the material was referenced, wikified and neutreal! Issues of poorly written material are to be corrected by the core "anyone can edit" policy, poorly written material can be rewritten, there is no policy stating that material may be deleted if 'poorly written'. The material was deleted, without discussion and in an uncivil manner, accompanied by multiple insults and derisive comments ("GAME MANIACS GO AWAY", etc.), three clearcut violations of established policy, which combined together are also violations of WP:BITE. User:Pedant 23:55, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

If BITE can be violated, then it is a policy, but it is a guideline, so it pretty much has as much weight as every other guideline and affects everyone equally. If BITE is to be treated as an enforcable rule, then so do guidelines such as Notability.

The Primary criterion.

"One notability criterion shared by nearly all of the guidelines, as well as Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, is the criterion that a topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works, whose sources are independent of the subject itself."

The popular culture section features games. The relation these games have to the weapon has no non-trivial published works explaining the relation. It does not meet this standard.

There is also a Rational.

  • In order to have a verifiable article, a topic must be notable enough that information about it will have been researched and checked through publication in multiple independent reliable sources.

There are no publications referenced in the section that even proves Hwachas are in these games. The only way to demostate this information is true is to go into the game it self and observe it there. That is original research. A big no-no in Wikipedia.
--OrbitOne [Talk|Babel] 14:11, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP is not a Paper Encyclopedia

I didn't think this was really necassary, but perhaps it will serve as a good reminder. In looking over some of the comments on the talk page, I noticed some comparisons to other encyclopedias (I think Brittanica was mentioned). While it is undoubtedly true the EB would not reference games in which Hwachas appear, it also would probably not reference the majority of things in the WP article because it does not have the space. Thus, when debating the pop culture issue, it would be helpful to all parties if we avoided comparisons between WP and the other major reference books. →Bobby← 14:55, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Does the Motivation Behind Inclusion of Games Matter?

Some editors who support deletion argue that links to game articles in the Hwacha section are used for advertising purposes. If the links are added in a good faith effort to create a more comprehensive encyclopedia (and not for advertising) would the editors supporting deletion think about the issue any differently? →Bobby← 15:06, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the motivation does matter to me. I am convinced the links were added in good faith now, which is why I am offering the compromise.--OrbitOne [Talk|Babel] 15:09, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
The motivation was clearly not to increase pageranking and is an irrelevant straw man or red herring. The compromise offered would delete the relevant info and only include the irrelevant link to Turn-based strategy. This "offer" included the "I will not budge" clause, which is not acceptable. "I will not budge" flouts the requirement to reach consensus, is extortive, not collaborative, and in general violates almost every well-settled fundamental wikipedian values. "I will not budge" is a fundamental problem with the user's mindset, which I believe shows an inability to work constructively and collaboratively, without breaches of civility, and shows a flagrant disregard of wikipedian core values. User:Pedant 00:05, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Names of Games in the Hwacha Article

In a compromise below, OrbitOne allows for the inclusion of a sentence stating that Hwachas are depicted in a genre of computer games so long as game names are not mentioned. This was met with strong opposition from the inclusion party. Here's my question then: How does providing names to games improve the article more than simply providing a link to the genre of games? →Bobby← 15:06, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

  • The genre of games in which hwachin occur is not necessarily limited to Turn-based strategy, as I believe some of the games are in the Realtime Strategy genre, RTS or whatever it is called, I am unfamiliar with many of the games mentioned. Mentioning the specific games allows someone interested in further study (the main point of a cross-reference) to read about the games in question and perhaps, through reading about their use in the games, gain some insight into their actual historical usage. The games in question can be investigated, and the reader can choose for oneself which games have been well-researched as to historical accuracy, and assess the value of information incorporated into the game. Perhaps the reader had once played a game, wherein there were Hwachin, but did not know what game it was, and wished to know what games had them, so that he could remind himself of what game it was. The purpose of providing more information, and a plethora of cross-references is to allow the reader to choose for themselves in what way the information is to be used. The purpose of the encyclopedia is to provide easy access to information, and it is not the purpose of the encyclopedia to restrict access, but to make reference tasks easy. This does not mean 'indiscriminate collections' of information, but organised and accessible information, cross referenced for easy research, precisely as stated in the WP:NOT policy, in the not an indiscriminate collection section. User:Pedant 00:19, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Complete & Final Breakdown of All Arguments

  • Orbit One although it may be common to have such a section, the work of a few users can make such a section common, the inclusions of such sections need not have been with concensus.
  • Pedant General consensus cannot be determined by discussion on one single article, it is determined by the overall consensus wikipedia-wide. The links in question are to other existing wikipedia articles. If the games in question were not notable, there would not be wikipedia articles on them. This shows that there is a general consensus that the topics are notable. Otherwise the articles would be deleted.
  • Wikimachine General consensus is specific to the editors related to that single article. That games are mentioned in articles proves nothing.
  • Pedant "General" is an antonym to "specific". Wikipedia-wide, there has been a demonstration that wikipedians in general disagree with the very small minority on the Military History project. The consensus is in fact that such sections are encyclopedically valuable. A project cannot WP:OWN an article any more than a single editor.
  • Wikimachine Do not define the word "general" outside the Wikipedia's "general consensus" policy context. There's quite a difference between articles on games and sections on games.
  • Orbit One Policies call for the deletion of software directories. The section is a list of games with little or no context. The section can be rewritten without loss of context so it is a classic software directory. Because it can be rewritten into a software directory without loss of

context or content, it already is a software directory, even if poorly written.

  • Pedant The general consensus of the entire wikipedia is that information which is factual and relevant and verifiable is included, not excluded. The test for information's inclusion in the wikipedia is whether it is factual, neutral, and referenced. The facts in the section in question are factual, neutral, and referenced.
  • Wikimachine Yes, let's quote "relevant". Games that include Hwacha are completely irrelevant to the Hwacha itself. Here's one GA criteria: (b) it stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary details (no non-notable trivia). That a is related to b & b to c is not a reason why a is related to c. Nor is there a reason why we should expect average readers to have interest in games that contain Hwacha.
  • Pedant The above guideline was only discussed by 9 editors. The section as previously written had no irrelevant details about the games themselves, but merely mentioned the Hwacha's presence in them.
  • OrbitOne However, the guideline should have influence on articles which are part of the project.'
  • Wikimachine Yes, 9 editors actively participated, but many members of the project viewed the discussion. If they saw anything wrong with the guideline, they would too voice their opinion.
  • Pedant Any project can try to dictate the actions of the community at large but no project can override community consensus, and there is a clear consensus that references to the subject matter of an article's influence on culture is relevant. This whole thing is an attempt by a tiny subgroup of editors to override a consensus that has been clearly established in practice for several years. Consensus is a bedrock principle.
  • Wikimachine And the community consensus is that game section does not belong in articles like Hwacha. GA criteria, FA criteria, WikiProject guidelines (including WikiProject Japan), etc. Community consensus and violations of the community consensus are not mutually exclusive. Just because there are articles and sections about games there should not be more articles and sections about games. Justification of worsening the status quo with the presence of the problems is inexcusable.
  • OrbitOne There have been no arguments or explanations as to why games are relevant or notable for Hwacha (weapon). To see Hwachin (is that correct?) in action one must see simulations such as exist in games or perhaps movies.
  • Pedant Nor has there been arguments as to why they are irrelevant.
  • OrbitOne That's not a reason why they are relevant.
  • Wikimachine In Wikipedia, when YOU bring up an argument, YOU prove it's relevant, factually accurate, etc. It is not part of others' responsibility to take care of somebody else's edits.
  • Pedant Nor is it acceptable to delete text without explanation, revert war, or be uncivil to fellow editors. This started by the paragraph being removed without discussion on the talk page, by refusal to discuss, and by rude comments to HappyApple when he insisted on a discussion, then an edit war caused by that same behavior rather than discussion per policy. The games are relevant because the subject of the article is featured in them. That's pretty straightforward. You've been told that before. At that point it becomes necessary for someone else to demonstrate their unsuitability for inclusion... to discuss it on the talk page as HappyApple had requested. That's straightforward Wikibehavior 101, chapter 1. This whole mess is a result of not discussing why the text was removed, and incivility when discussion was requested.
  • Wikimachine Civility operates under a completely different framework. Offense on one framework does not link to counter losses in another world of discussion.
  • OrbitOne Although Fancruft is an essay and Wikipedia:Importance is a guideline, they explain the intention of Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information.
  • OrbitOne To further my point, please look at Nelson_Mandela#Trivia. That is was a trvia/pop culture section should look like. Although there are a couple of points I cringe at, almost all of them have something to do with the man directly.
  • Pedant "fancruft" ... implies that the content is unimportant and the contributor's judgement of notability is lacking". Calling a user's contributions by the word fancruft is a violation of WP:CIVIL and a lack of civility and a willingness to discuss the text on its merits is a core part of the problem. [Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information] does not cover this issue, this is not a 'link directory' as you keep saying it is.
  • Wikimachine That's right. The content is unimportant and the contributor's judgment of notability was MISTAKEN. We never implied anything like that, please rethink your misunderstanding. And it is not a violation of WP:CIVIL. And being/not civil should have nothing to do with the mediation process.
Pedant "GAME MANIACS GO AWAY" is not civil. HappyApple requested discussion, and was flatly refused. This mediation should cover all aspects of this dispute and not just the narrow path that you dictate.
Wikimachine You're quite mistaken. I was the first one to bring the issue of the game section under the mask of the title "popular culture". And I did discuss with HappyApple, and nobody flatly refused HappyApple. Let's see the first section of the phrase "PROFESSIONAL, PLEASE". One can clearly see that it can never be an accusation. It links to the previous section of "Making the article more professional". I detest your appeal to the community as the victim by incriminating a user without good faith. What's the point of making that accusation when you make an implication that you operate under the framework of good faith anyways?
  • Pedant The purpose of providing more information, and a plethora of cross-references is to allow the reader to choose for themselves in what way the information is to be used. The purpose of the encyclopedia is to provide easy access to information, and it is not the purpose of the encyclopedia to restrict access, but to make reference tasks easy. This does not mean 'indiscriminate collections' of information, but organised and accessible information, cross referenced for easy research, precisely as stated in the WP:NOT policy, in the not an indiscriminate collection section.
  • Wikimachine To expect "a plethora of cross-references" (or rather say, a jumble of random junks pulled together) to somehow & eventually make a productive outcome for most of the readers is ... somehow... far-fetched.

(Wikimachine 07:30, 2 January 2007 (UTC))

  • PedantThere you go again, calling a fellow editor's contribution a "jumble" (this is a format issue, to be edited, not deleted -- needing organization, if so, another editor can freely edit them into a better organised order if he chooses, everyone has different presentational ideas) of "random" (these links are not random, they are only links to games which feature the weapon) "junks" (calling an editor's contributions "junks" is even a more direct attack than calling it "fancruft"), and this is exactly the sort of uncivil behavior that created this mess.
  • Wikimachine Cross apply previous statements.
...and making a section called Complete & Final Breakdown of All Arguments, in the middle of the page like this is pretty random, and your jumble of carefully culled comments, intended to misrepresent the issue -- and then calling it 'complete' and 'final' , and a 'breakdown of all arguments' is absolutely ridiculous. Let's leave refactoring of this discussion to the mediator, please, your efforts are only serving to make this discussion so verbose as to be difficult to follow, when and/or if this goes to the next step, making it necessary for all parties to explain the situation over again. User:Pedant 01:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
(outside of the "complete orga...") Pedant, I don't get you at all. When you operate under the framework of good faith, you cannot preemptively assume my actions as ill-intentioned. And please, answer arguments with arguments specific to that part of the discussion. Do not justify one type of argument with another, or else it becomes a "jumble" of incomprehensible arguments again. The reason why I made this section is so that we know exactly where the arguments are heading and what to answer. If you have unrelated comments or do not want to follow the format that I have set, edit somewhere else in the page. (Wikimachine 02:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Compromise Offers

[edit] HappyApple's Compromise

This idea was offered on the article talk page AND on the original mediation page: 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)

[edit] Users Supporting the Above Offer

[edit] Discussion

Pedant (or HappyApple). Could you clarify the above position slightly. I think I understand the idea HappyApple is striving for. However, "grammar" could be interpreted different ways by different editors. I don't want to run into a situation down the road where another user uses HappyApple's grammar as a justification for editting his prose, but HappyApple comes back and reverts because he feels that more than grammar was changed. Thanks, →Bobby← 14:35, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

As I understand it, this compromise doesn't change the content of the section or add any relevance. A bit of clarity would be welcomed.
--OrbitOne [Talk|Babel] 15:16, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] clarification

HappyApple feels that the information is relevant and factual and neutral in tone. He also understands that his writing, while writing in the English language may not in all cases be up to the standards of the encyclopedia. He believes that the information is of value. He feels that the original problem came from people deleting his text without explanation other than saying it was poorly-written (see Talk:Hwacha) and telling him to go away, and calling him names. He has already refrained from reinstating the text, in order to cool the discussion and allow forward progress on the article in the meantime. However, he understands the core principle of collaboration, and encourages anyone to either edit the text for clarity, style or grammar, or to remove any information (accompanied by an explanation other than "Game Maniacs go away!" on the talk page) that does not belong. In short, he believes the text is of reference value, and that the flaws are minor and correctable by simple editing, but that wholesale excision of useful data, without an accompanying explanation is not satisfactory and does not suit wikipedian policy that all edits are made with the intent to create a better encyclopedia. His offer of compromise is made in the spirit of assuming good faith that other editors will behave appropriately, and that the prior incivility and personal insults were made through ignorance of policy rather than malice. User:Pedant

NOTE(this interpretation is based on an extensive email correspondence with HappyApple, and is expressed in my words, and comes from my understanding of his intent, I do not make continual consults with him on a moment-to-moment basis, as he has already been burdened by this long argument, in a foreign language, with several editors who have already shown an unwillingness to discuss this as gentlemen and colleagues. His edits were made with a sincere good intent and he feels that the content is valuable enough to the wikipedia to fight for its inclusion, yet he prefers to settle this through rational discussion, rather than an edit war. Since this was apparently impossible, he requested the services of an advocate, who would listen and try to understand him. As an advocate, I often have to explain to my advocee that they are wrong, or that their behavior was inappropriate, however in this case, I feel he did the best he could, and was viciously bitten for it. I feel that the compromise need not have been made, since this was exactly what he originally did, He reinstated the info and requested discussion for any deletions.)User:Pedant 00:44, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Please note and accept, I did not insult HappyApple. I was willing to discuss the issue, but his reverts were never explained in the talk page. He insisted on, at first, using edit summaries, which is not acceptable as a discussion.
--OrbitOne [Talk|Babel] 09:01, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Your deletions of his contributions were never explained in the talk page. Before he reverted it. He requested discussion, and on my advice insisted on discussion. On my advice he unilaterally stopped adding the material in question. It was up to the first person to remove the material to make an expalnation, not up to the person who added it back after not getting an explanation as to why it was deleted. Whoever it was that was insulting, and wherefore they deleted his material is no longer the entire issue. ...

... This started because of a lack of civility and a refusal to discuss the reason for deleting the material, which led to an edit war, which HappyApple stopped by discontinuing his reinstatement of the deleted material. He did not cause this dispute, and he behaved as appropriately as he could. He tried to resolve this through discussion. So have I, as his advocate. This just goes around in circles, and I think it is time for it to end if it is not going anywhere. I don't have the time to continue this forever, this has used up more time than all of my other wikipedia work taken together since it has begun, which is an appalling waste of resources for something so trivial that could have been prevented in the first place. 02:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Oppose Compromise That infos are referenced does not make them relevant or not extraneous. The fact that the charge of "extraneous", etc. being vague is the reason why there shouldn't be any lee ways like this one. Vague definitions must be set by good precedents, or they lose their authority. (Wikimachine 05:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC))

[edit] OrbitOne's Compromise

This idea was offered on the mediation request page:

  • 09:12, 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]

[edit] Users Supporting the Above Offer

[edit] Discussion

From my perspective, this is a very reasonable compromise. It allows for a mild pop culture reference without detracting from the formal tone of the article. Please post comments on this idea below. →Bobby← 14:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

If this compromise is accepted, I am willing to help HappyApple write the section. But I will not budge from the conditions that 1) no games be named, 2) no games be linked to. --OrbitOne [Talk|Babel] 22:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Not acceptable, vague references are not informative, and links to other articles are a core concept of the wikipedia project. It is not up to one or 2 users to make ultimata which would bind the entire community. Consensus is a core part of the idea of wikipedia, and "I will not budge" is entirely incompatible with the consensus process. If "I will not budge" is OrbitOne's position then it follows that this cannot be solved informally. Note that both times OrbitOne has attempted to outvote consensus, the vote has been to keep and not delete the section. HappyApple's position that the information be not deleted without explanation, and his invitation to all other users to freely edit the text is however, entirely within the nature and intent of the wikipedian core principles. User:Pedant 22:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
I must ask. Did you at all present this compromise to HappyApple? Unless you have taken up his cause as personal,then I do not think it is your call to object to such compromises without HappyApple saying so.
--OrbitOne [Talk|Babel] 23:31, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
As an advocate, my first duty is to the Wikipedia community at large. Such an offer is not acceptable to the community. As I said before "I will not budge" is entirely incompatible with the consensus process. The consensus process is a fundamental unshakeable mandate, without which the community ceases to function. Your demand that no games be mentioned or referenced is absurd, and acceding to that demand would countervail established community consensus. Your compromise is no compromise at all, and is a blatant attempt to coerce the community to follow your wishes. It is clear that short of banning you, the wikipedian community must let you have your way, in support of which you could not find more than 2 other editors in the original discussion and vote. It is clear you hold the consensus process in contempt. In this case I do not find it necessary to consult with HappyApple, as he has made his position clear. His position is that cross-references are an enhancement of value to the wikipedia, and your "compromise" is a direct attack on that premise, which I believe would not be supported by any random assemblage of the community at large. User:Pedant 23:56, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Except you have refused to budge from the inclusion of the game links. You already refused the offer long before I said I wouldn't budge.--OrbitOne [Talk|Babel] 00:01, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[citation needed]

  • Comment - Since this compromise is not acceptable to one of the involved parties, let's talk about HappyApple's offer up above. Continuing to debate OrbitOne's proposal at this time would most likely lead to uncivility. →Bobby← 14:28, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose Compromise There might be some leniency on mentioning of specific games if they made huge impact on modern history, etc., but to mention genres of games in which Hwacha is included is absolutely nonsensical. That's like saying "cannons are usually very powerful units in real time strategy games" (triple "duh"). (Wikimachine 05:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Protest

I protest the change of venue of this discussion. I have discussed this on the article talk page, at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-11-13 Hwacha popular culture and on the personal talk pages of several users. This discussion needs to stay put, in one place so it can be followed and easily archived.

I also protest putting OrbitOne's compromise offer on this page but without including HappyApple's compromise offer which was made at an earlier date, and was also made on other talk pages.

I also protest Robert Cole's (Bobby) assertion that

"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."

...which was made after I had voiced HappyApple's position was stated and after HappyApple's compromise offer.

I request the record to include the text from Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-11-13 Hwacha popular culture in its entirety.

I request either a new mediator or an additional mediator for this case because if this case is going to be mediated as per the protest above, it is unacceptable. All facts, offers and discussion should be taken notice of, to arrive at a fair result.

If this mediation continues wtihout resolution of the protests above and in willful ignorance of previously documented discussion, I will be forced to advise HappyApple to withdraw from this mediation and await more formal dispute resolution procedures.User:Pedant 21:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Sorry you feel that way. I'm still trying to get caught up on where folks stand. Shortly after taking the case, I went away for a while and it slipped my mind. Eventually OrbitOne reminded me about it, and now I'm trying to get caught up. The talk page at the Hwacha article is quite a mess, and my attempt to start a fresh discussion fizzled rather quickly. As it stands now, I just saw OrbitOne make a pretty amicable (based on his previous position of "no inclusion") offer, and I wanted to see where that would lead. I'm trying pretty hard to get caught up on the particulars, but it's tricky since the debate is ongoing. If you want fresh eyes I won't complain, but I am going to try really hard to get on top of this thing. →Bobby← 21:52, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Pedant. It is your own responsibility to post compromises from HappyApple. I posted my compromise offer directly to the mediation page. You haven't. If you did, Bobby would be able to find it without having to search the whole talk page. If I remember HappyApples/your compromise offer correctly, it was basicly a rewrite with the same links and content. It wasn't a compromise in other words. You are welcomed to correct me though. --OrbitOne [Talk|Babel] 22:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
In summary your compromise offer was "I will not budge", which is essentially a refusal to compromise, and HappyApple's offer was "Anyone can edit", which, according to Jimbo Wales is an inflexible core value of the wikipedian project. User:Pedant 22:56, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

It is a compromise. A non-compromise is to demand the whole section be deleted. In the compromise, the section can stay, but the content would be dramaticly changed. Your compromise has been a simple no to changing the content, instead asking for help to rewrite the section so the gramar and spelling is correct. It isn't the spelling which is objectionable, it is the content. That is what I am focusing on. --OrbitOne [Talk|Babel] 23:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] PROTEST!

I will make this short. Reviewing user contributions, I noticed Pedant has not consulted HappyApple about my compromise prior to rejecting it. Pedant is representing HappyApple as his advocat. Pedant should present HappyApple with the offered compromise so HappyApple can judge if the compromise is acceptable to him. Pedant cannot, to the best of my understanding, make that choice for HappyApple as his advocat. I demand Pedant either present HappyApple with the compromise or step down as HappyApple's advocat so HappyApple can seek the help of a new advocat. I cannot trust Pedant is representing HappyApple when Pedant does not consult HappyApple.
--OrbitOne [Talk|Babel] 23:45, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

If you are so concerned about HappyApple, why don't the two of you discuss this and work it out? Because you don't want to. I've consulted HappyApple, and I know what the issue is. He wants policy to be followed. No personal attacks, no deletion without discussion, use consensus to make decisions. It's so simple. As for consulting HappyApple on every decision, it's none of your business in what manner we choose to communicate, I don't spend my whole life on your problem alone (perhaps you should get an advocate yourself?) and I am in contact with him as appropriate... see this and this, as an advocate I cannot recommend that my advocee accede to extortion such as your "I will not budge" position. User:Pedant 00:18, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
I haven't attacked either you or HappyApple Pedant. I wish you would respect that. Also, when you are acting as his advocate, I am to talk with you, not him. If you are not acting as his advocate, then I will talk with him.
My issues with the popular culture section are well founded in policy.
--OrbitOne [Talk|Babel] 00:24, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Your "consultation" was today, November 30, 2006. You know what that means? How could you have been the "advocate" for HappyApple since a month or two ago without a single consultation? You're probably a Wikipedia:sock puppet. (Wikimachine 00:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC))

Please let it be on the record, I am not associating myself with that accusation.
--OrbitOne [Talk|Babel] 00:51, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I withdraw that accusation. VandalProof user edits list shows no correlation between the two users. (Wikimachine 01:06, 1 December 2006 (UTC))

Oh, please, give me a break. Neither one of you has shown the slightest intent to solve this issue. When you are talking to me, about this case, just pretend that I am HappyApple. I personally haven't the slightest interest in medieval Korean weaponry. I'm into arts and entertainment, and contemporary history. Of course I'm not a sock puppet. And just exactly what could HappyApple possibly gain by using a sock puppet as his advocate? And there's this newfangled thing called e-lectronical mail... this is becoming pretty ridiculous.

OK, so tell me, just exactly what policy is it that says popular culture sections should have no names and no links, hmmm? Or that sections should be deleted without discussion? Or that to determine consensus, you have a vote? Or that if you have a vote and lose, you should have another vote? And when you lose that, it means the consensus agrees with you? Maybe combine the two losing votes and see if that changes things. And what policy is it that says wikiproject guidelines override consensus? I really suggest you consult with someone who has some sense and understands what a policy is, and just what policies actually exist, before we continue this discussion. If you continue with nonsensical accusations, you are not going to improve things. User:Pedant 08:25, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

  1. I did not associate myself with that accusation because I know it is a dumb move.
  2. You can read exactly which policies I am refering too above.
  3. If you are still representing HappyApple, I will wait and see exactly what he says too my compromise offer.
  4. I am the only one who has offered an alternative to 'Keep the names and links' and 'Delete the whole section'.
    --OrbitOne [Talk|Babel] 09:00, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
  • TimeOut!- Whoa. I go to sleep for a little bit and all sorts of things happen. That'll teach me! Let me first say that as an advocate myself, I sometimes communicate with my clients via other means such as email. Some users simply do not want all of their comments to go on the permanent record. This is quite acceptable.
That said, I'm always eager to have as many editors discussing an issue as possible. I will understand, Pedant, if HappyApple does not wish to contribute directly to the discussion as a result of past bad experiences. However, if he wants to, I'm sure everybody on this page will treat him kindly, and his views will be appreciated.
Wikimachine, I'm glad you withdrew your accusation. In the future, I hope you will perform the sockpuppet investigation before leveling an accusation at a volunteer to the discussion.
Let's end this now before we get too involved in picking on each other to resolve this issue. Thanks, →Bobby← 14:46, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
HappyApple is following this discussion, and he will comment as he feels appropriate. I have no personal stake in this whatsoever, and any solution, or no solution is fine with me. I do however personally feel that WP:CIVIL and WP:BITE are valuable policies that were violated blatantly, and that this would have been solved long ago if a rational discussion had been wholeheartedly attempted.
I think HappyApple deserves an apology, but moreso, I think it would be of value for all editors involved to really look at how this started. And please, as I've said before, we are colleagues, not competitors, let's remember that if this discussion is going to continue, the goal has got to be to provide a better encyclopedia, a better article, a more productive working environment and all of that. If not, then why are we here? To win an argument with a stranger whom we might never meet? Or to collaborate effectively, putting aside everything else but the goal of producing a better encyclopedia? Think how many man-hours we have wasted on this tiny point, and what could you do with those wasted hours to better Wikipedia! I will be very busy on the 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, and 7th, so I may not participate, perhaps at all, in this discussion until the 8th. Maybe everyone involved could get some 3rd party advice from someone they trust in the meantime, and come back to this in a week refreshed enough to resolve this before the year is over. User:Pedant 01:01, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Active?

Is this discussion still active or being actively mediated? Do you need another mediator or can the case be closed? --Ideogram 20:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I think this is something that cannot be mediated, and I would advise arbitration or RfC if either party wants to pursue this. It just goes in circles, and there is no point in further mediation. Just have your edit war, and your RfC or arbitration, if it can't be resolved in 2 or more months, it's a pretty good clue that mediation won't work. I'm retiring from further comment on this issue until the inevitable next edit war, at which point I will support blocking/banning 3RR violators, and advise arbitration. I don't think any of the editors involved in the dispute are sufficiently familiar with policy or have the cooperative spirit necessary to make mediation work. User:Pedant 06:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I am all to willing to try to mediate this issue. But, one side seems to have dropped out, and no one seems to have contacted the arbitration committee. Also, when I came up with a compromise, it was flat out turned down without discussion. So I have tried. --OrbitOne [Talk|Babel] 08:01, 14 February 2007 (UTC)