Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-03-20 Israel

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1 Mediation: 2006-03-20 Israel
2 Requesting Update
3 Case closed

[edit] Mediation: 2006-03-20 Israel

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 Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal.

[edit] Request Information

Request made by: MJCdetroit 21:47, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I think the issue may have been resolved through various editors comments to tasc. At least tasc has stopped reverting my work. MJCdetroit 21:29, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

No! Spoke to soon. He is doing it again!MJCdetroit 00:32, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Where is the issue taking place?: ...Israel article

Who's involved?: ...tasc

What's going on?: ...I added square miles to the template and tasc reverted it. I explained my reasoning for it on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers). Yet, Tasc says that he is correct and reverts my edits. I made a very good argument for why I edited what I edited. I have done the same type of edit hundreds of times with out a problem, until now.

What would you like to change about that?: ...To have my edits left alone in the article.

If you'd prefer we work discreetly, how can we reach you?: ...No public is fine.

Would you be willing to be a mediator yourself, and accept a mediation assignment in a different case?: Not at this time.

[edit] Mediator response

[edit] Response 1

tasc:

would you please briefly summarize the grounds for your objection to the inclusion of non-metric measurement in this case?
would you please record why you reverted MJCdetroit's edits rather than discuss your objection first?
if your revert is for specific rather than general reasons (that is, it is not subject to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Measurements, "Conversions should generally not be removed"), please enumerate and explain these.

-- Fullstop 08:05, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't have any specific objection regarding israel article. I don't think that addition of non-metric units is appropriate for the country infobox, as well the way it is done. After my edits were reverted i started topic on manual talk page (Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)/archive40#Conversions). I didn't get proper answer and reverted back. Please take into account that both units section and manual as a whole is highly disputed! As can be seen from user mjcdetroit's contribution page he didn't stop his detrimental edits. As i've poiinted out previously. There is no any help in using customary units as they don't add anything to understanding of how big country is. (as well don't do km, but at least ranking used standard SI units.) --tasc 18:35, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

and btw I don't see my opponent being asked the same kind of question. --tasc 18:38, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

>> and btw I don't see my opponent being asked the same kind of question.

Because I wanted to understand the reasons for the initial revert (which is yours), or to put it another way, to understand your grieviances. Per your initial question in talk, your objection centers around "why [non-metric units] should be added" (17:36, 20 March 2006), which did not adequately explain (to me) your removal of those units at 19:09.

Moreover, also in style-manual talk, you noted that "it doesn't make wp universal it does make it ridiculous" (18:29), which suggests that you might have been emotionally charged when you reverted 30 minutes later, and I hoped you might since then have reconsidered your actions.

[edit] Response 2

A discussion as to why an "addition of non-metric units is appropriate" (or not), or whether these "add anything to understanding of how big country is" is well beyond the scope of this mediation or of the Israel article. Since tasc's objections revolve around the use of non-SI units in all of Wikipedia, I suggest tasc take this issue to the village pump. Neither article nor mediation space are an appropriate place for discussing general (cross-article) issues.

Since this mediation is specific to the Israel article, and tasc has stated that he does not have an objection specific to the the Israel article, I'm going to close this case (if either side have an objection, I will reopen it). I sincerely hope that tasc recognizes that numbers (both SI and non-SI) "that don't add anything", by his own definition, also do not remove anything, and are therefore not detrimental to the quality of an article.

Until a consensus at the pump (or elsewhere) indicates otherwise, I suggest the Israel article be left to include both SI and non-metric units.

With respect to (both) your use of reverts [1], I must point out that the three-revert rule does not imply that reverting 3 times or less is acceptable. Wikipedia works by building consensus. This is done through polite discussion and negotiation. Reverts on the other hand, though a powerful tool, are also a sure way to annoy and aggrieve, and thats not a good foundation for discussion. First and foremost, assume (and show) good faith. Repeatedly, if need be.

-- Fullstop 12:20, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your time/involvement in this matter, MJCdetroit 13:32, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence

Please report evidence in this section with {{Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Evidence}} for misconduct and {{Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Evidence3RR}} for 3RR violations. If you need help ask a mediator or an advocate. Evidence is of limited use in mediation as the mediator has no authority. Providing some evidence may, however, be useful in making both sides act more civil.
Wikipedia:Etiquette: Although it's understandably difficult in a heated argument, if the other party is not as civil as you'd like them to be, make sure to be more civil than him or her, not less.

First and second lines from WP:MOSNUM#Measurements states: Wikipedia articles are intended for people anywhere in the world. Try to make articles simple to read and translate. Conversions should generally not be removed.

Therefore 20,770 sq km converts to 8,019 sq. miles. These numbers are available from the CIA factbook, U.S. State Deptement, The Encyclopaedia Britannica, MSN's Encarta Encyclopedia, Holt, Rinehart and Winston World Atlas, and the Encyclopedia of the Nations. With the exception of the CIA, the rest give the figures in both English and Metric, especially in the encyclopedias. MJCdetroit 18:06, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Compromise offers

This section is for listing and discussing compromise offers.

[edit] Comments by others

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.

[edit] Discussion

As I've noted before edits in question do not help readers and do not comply with edinorial consistency concept. --tasc 10:45, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

We have already discussed (Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Conversions) how 67-70% of the readers are American and do not use this system of measurements. Therefore the conversions are helpful to many readers. You just want to be difficult for the sake of being difficult and many readers suffer because of your POV. MJCdetroit 18:20, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

please. it's you discussed, not we. you complitely ignored my arguments. I'm just seeing how many readers suffer from understanding what 150 000 sq. km is and how it's easy to imagine 100 000 sq.miles --tasc 18:23, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Easy to read and understand? why don't we indicate distances in hours of driving? i bet it is much more easy to understand for the majority of americans than km. --tasc 18:23, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Something to think about:

Jimbo Wale's third edit to Wikipedia —MJCdetroit 05:49, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

is he a saint or what? he can be wrong too. --tasc 10:02, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, there is no doubt that I can be wrong. That edit was not intended as policy. On the other hand, in this particular case, I think it is well settled and obviously correct that we need to include both measurements in many or most instances.--Jimbo Wales 04:07, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

aparently this is the case. if you'll read mosnum's talk page, you'd notice that there is no aggreement. As i see it, this mediation not about use of non-metric units in general, rather about particular template (infobox country) and about the way User:MJCdetroit is performing his edits, including false justification in summary. --tasc 07:56, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Requesting Update

This case has not been updated since March 28. I will be closing this case and moving it to the archives if no update is given and/or there are no objections. Cowman109^Talk 23:27, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Case closed

This case has been closed due to inactivity. Should mediation still be required, a new request for mediation should be filed. The listing of this case has been moved to the archives. Cowman109^Talk 19:42, 14 May 2006 (UTC)